set_season_monitored

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the operation and adds nuanced behavior: passing 0 targets specials, and omitting season numbers applies the change to every season. It does not cover return values or side effects, but the core behavior is 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 tightly written sentences convey the operation, the special-case season value, and the default behavior with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains all essential behavior, parameter semantics, and the special default case, leaving no critical ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the useful non-obvious detail that 0 refers to specials, which is not present in the schema. It restates the omit-to-apply-all behavior already in the schema, but the specials mapping adds real value.

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 a specific action—monitor or unmonitor whole seasons of a series—and distinguishes itself from set_episodes_monitored by emphasizing whole-season scope. It also provides key details like season 0 meaning specials and the default behavior when season numbers are omitted.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: for whole-season monitoring changes. It implicitly contrasts with episode-level monitoring tools like set_episodes_monitored, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it.

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