episode_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the operation reads the player state via GET /me/player, costs exactly 1 quota unit (🟢 green), and persists to the sidecar. It does not disclose overwrite-vs-append semantics or failure behavior (e.g., nothing playing), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action, scope, and sibling distinction; the second adds quota and cost. Every clause earns its place, and the most important routing information appears first.

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 tool with 2 optional params and no nested objects, this is nearly complete: it covers purpose, stored fields, sibling scope, and cost. The remaining gaps are minor — no explicit return-value note (though the response_format param covers output options) and no idempotency statement. Against the tool's low complexity, this is strong.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'note' and 'response_format' are already fully documented in the schema, including enum meaning ('concise'/'detailed'/'json'). The description's mention of 'optional note' merely echoes the schema and adds no new parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States an action verb ('Bookmark'), a specific resource ('current podcast-episode position'), a storage target ('the sidecar'), and the captured fields ('title, show, progress, optional note'). The clause 'where_was_i is audiobooks-only today' explicitly differentiates it from the nearest sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Names the closest alternative ('where_was_i') and the deciding condition ('audiobooks-only'), telling the agent to use this tool for podcast episodes instead. It also discloses the cost profile upfront. It does not canvass all bookmark-like siblings (e.g., chapter_bookmarks, capture_playback_position, save_scene), so it falls just short of exhaustive when/when-not guidance.

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