stremio_mark_watched

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behavioral traits beyond the schema: the effect applies across every signed-in device, and marking watched clears the resume position. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or confirm reversibility, keeping it short of 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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the side effect following. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and purpose plus the cross-device side effect are covered. However, for a 3-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the failure to document the identifier and content_type leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters. It only implicitly hints at the watched boolean ('watched or unwatched'); imdb_id (the required identifier) and content_type (defaulting to 'movie', relevant for shows) are never explained, so an agent gets little help on required input.

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 names a specific verb pair (watched/unwatched) and resource (library title) plus a scope (across every signed-in device), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as stremio_continue_watching or stremio_add_to_library, which caps it at 4.

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?

Usage is implied by the described side effect (leaving the continue-watching row) rather than stated as when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit alternative or exclusion (e.g. when to prefer toggling watched vs removing from library). Adequate but with a clear gap.

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