set_episode_status

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the HTTP method (PATCH), the endpoint, and notes that it can change UNAIRED to WANTED unlike the internal endpoint. It also lists allowed statuses. However, it does not discuss side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Behavioral insight is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is well-structured: a summary line, usage context, and parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the action and endpoint. Some repetition (e.g., mentioning PATCH twice) could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), return values are covered. The description addresses the main use case and compares to an alternative (internal endpoint). However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., series must exist), potential error states, or behavior if episodes array is empty. Complete enough for typical use but could elaborate on edge cases.

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. It explains series_slug with an example, episodes with an example format, and status with allowed values and default. This adds meaningful information beyond the bare schema. Could improve by specifying that episodes are required and case sensitivity.

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 the tool's action: setting episode statuses for a series via a specific PATCH endpoint. It provides specific use cases (out-of-sync metadata) and distinguishes from internal bulk-update by noting it can change UNAIRED to WANTED. This differentiates it from sibling tools like force_search or add_series.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'when TVDB metadata is out of sync... Medusa is not downloading episodes that should be available.' It also explains when this tool is preferable over the internal bulk-update endpoint. However, it does not specify when NOT to use it or provide alternatives for other scenarios.

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