push_subtitle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it names the write destination (Android TV Downloads folder) and discloses a non-obvious side effect of clear_player_default (forgetting Stremio's chosen video app so Android re-prompts). It does not cover overwrite behavior for an existing file, permissions/auth, or failure modes, so it falls short of exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then a compact parameter glossary. Every line carries information, though the phrasing of the clear_player_default explanation wraps across two lines and is slightly indirect.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers destination, all parameters, the key side effect, and the alternative tool. It leaves open device targeting (which Android TV) and overwrite/error behavior, which are minor but real gaps for a file-push operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all three parameters: subtitle_url_or_path (URL to download from or local absolute path), filename (must end in .srt), and clear_player_default (behavioral effect). It omits the filename default value and any URL/local-path validation nuances, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 a specific verb and resource with destination scope: pushing an SRT subtitle file to the Android TV Downloads folder. It also names the sibling it is not (add_subtitle, for subtitles inside Stremio), so the agent can distinguish the two without opening 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For subtitles inside Stremio itself, use add_subtitle,' which is a clear when-not for the sibling. The clear_player_default explanation also tells the agent the scenario it enables (external player like VLC taking over), though it does not spell out broader preconditions such as requiring a paired/connected TV.

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