Log Watched Media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the write intent. It does not say whether logging creates or updates an entry, how duplicates/IDs are resolved, what permissions are needed, or what happens when a title matches nothing in the library.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the core action comes first. It is tight, though it omits useful detail rather than being over-long, so it is efficient without being exemplary.

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?

For an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin: it ignores media_type (movie vs tv), the optional imdb_id/tmdb_id/year matching fields, and default behaviors like date_watched defaulting to today. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but input and side-effect behavior remain under-specified.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including the 1-10 rating range, media_type values, and ISO date format. The description merely restates rating/review/date, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, which makes the 3 baseline correct.

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 (log) plus the resource it applies to ('watched movie or episode'), and the media scope implicitly separates it from siblings like log_read_book or log_restaurant. It never names an alternative tool or explicitly contrasts with siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named despite relevant siblings (search_media, get_watchlist, vet_recommendation_candidate). Usage is only inferable from the verb 'log watched'.

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