record_watch_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It implies a write/persist operation and states downstream effects on recommendations, which is useful. However, it does not disclose duplicate handling, overwrite behavior, auth requirements, or what happens when event details are incomplete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and its purpose without wasted words. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too thin. It gives a high-level purpose but omits required input guidance, status semantics, and behavioral details needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only hints at "category/app preferences," loosely mapping to categories and appId, but does not explain any of the 8 parameters, including required title, status enum, watchedAt, or progressPercent. This is minimal compensation for a schema with no field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Record watch activity," and clarifies the purpose: to improve recommendations and capture category/app preferences. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval/recommendation tools like list_watch_history or recommend_content.

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 conveys the clear context of use: record watch activity when a user watches something so recommendations can avoid repeats and learn preferences. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose statement makes the appropriate use case apparent.

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