mark_watched

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool marks as watched with optional rating and notes, but lacks detail on side effects, reversibility, authentication needs, or rate limits. It provides basic context but not enough depth for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second providing a critical usage distinction. Every sentence adds value, no filler, and the key 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main action and distinguishes from a sibling, but lacks details on return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., tmdb_id validity), or behavior when media is already watched. It is adequate but incomplete.

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 only 25% (only rating has a description). The description mentions 'optional rating and notes', adding meaning for those two parameters, but gives no additional guidance for 'tmdb_id' or 'media_type'. While it implies media_type is 'movie' or 'tv', it does not fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('marks as watched'), the resource ('movie or series at a general level'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mark_episode_watched' by specifying that this is for whole series, not individual episodes.

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 tells when to use this tool ('for a movie or series at a general level') and when not to ('for individual episodes, use mark_episode_watched'), providing clear guidance and an alternative.

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