check_episode_saved

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: it is read-only, returns batch yes/no answers, and does not guess but actually queries the library. The explicit mention of the GET endpoint adds further transparency about the underlying operation, though it omits details like error handling or auth requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check which episodes are already saved in your library'), then adds the endpoint and key behavior details ('batch yes/no, no guessing. Read-only.'). Every word earns its place, and there is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('batch yes/no') and the core behavior. It does not describe response details for the 'detailed' or 'json' response_format values, but those are documented in the parameter schema, so the overall picture is complete enough for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (episode_ids and response_format) with details about accepted formats and defaults, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. The 'batch yes/no' wording hints at the per-episode result but does not elaborate on parameter behaviors.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks which episodes are saved in the user's library, with a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('episodes saved in your library'), and a precise behavior ('batch yes/no'). It also names the API endpoint (GET /me/episodes/contains), distinguishing it from generic library-checking or episode-listing siblings like get_saved_episodes or check_saved_items.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Check which episodes are already saved in your library' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and 'batch yes/no' signals it is for verifying a set of episodes rather than listing all saved ones. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it over related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.