episode_resume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does meaningful work: it reveals the tool is mutating ('2-3 writes'), discloses the quota tier (🟡), and spells out the operation sequence (transfer + play with position + seek). It stops short of describing failure behavior, such as what happens when no bookmark exists for the episode, 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?

Three short sentences earn their place: the first states the action and mechanism, the second names the companion tool, and the third gives the quota cost. The most decision-relevant fact (what it does) is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 moderate-complexity tool with four optional, fully documented parameters and no annotations, the description covers the key calling context: operation flow, mutation cost, pairing with episode_bookmark, and defaults surfaced by the schema. The main gaps are the absence of an output schema and no mention of edge-case behavior (no bookmark found, dry_run result shape), but the response_format parameter partially compensates for return-value expectations.

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 all four parameters (dry_run, device_id, bookmark_id, response_format) are already documented in the input schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds a useful operational framing that connects the parameters ('transfer' explains device_id, 'with position' explains bookmark_id) but no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Jump straight back to...episode bookmark'), a specific resource (episode bookmark), and a precise scope ('newest (or a named)'). It also names the companion sibling 'episode_bookmark', which lets an agent distinguish the resumption action from the bookmark-creation action without inspecting either 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?

The description gives clear contextual guidance by naming its companion tool ('Pairs with episode_bookmark') and by the operation breakdown (transfer + play with position + seek), which signals this is the resume-bookmark workflow rather than a general playback seek or transfer tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use alternatives like resume_playback_position, continue_last, or transfer_playback_with_state, so exclusions are left to inference.

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