resume_playback_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does it reasonably well: it discloses that the tool will transfer playback to a device, seek to a position, and that it previews by default unless dry_run=false is passed. It stops short of describing failure modes, device availability issues, or effects on current playback, but the key side effects are transparent.

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 crisp sentences with no filler. The core purpose and mechanics are front-loaded, and the critical dry_run execution detail is placed at the end where it is easy to notice.

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 mutation-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what the tool does, what side effects it has, and how to switch from preview to execution. It could add explicit prerequisites or alternative routing, but the schema already documents the bookmark_id provenance, so the description is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds slight value by connecting bookmark_id to the 'bookmarked device and position' and by reaffirming the dry_run execution semantics, but it goes no further than the schema already does for play and response_format.

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 ('Resume') applied to a concrete resource ('a captured playback bookmark') and defines what that entails: transfer playback to the bookmarked device and seek to the bookmarked position. This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like capture_playback_position, delete_playback_bookmark, or episode_resume.

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 implies when to use it: when a captured bookmark exists and the user wants to resume it by moving playback to the bookmarked device. It also gives clear execution guidance via the dry_run=false flag. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, leaving route selection to inference.

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