Rate media

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'add or update' wording is consistent with the idempotent upsert hint and usefully confirms that existing ratings are overwritten rather than duplicated. It adds nothing about rating scale, auth, or per-item partial updates.

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 compact sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and wastes nothing, though it is sparse enough that brevity shades into under-specification.

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 no output schema and full annotation coverage, the safety and mutation profile is conveyed. However, a two-array batch mutation tool that silently replaces existing ratings should say more: whether at least one of shows/movies is required, the rating range or scale, and the effect of re-rating an already-rated item.

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 ids, rating, and rated_at are already documented with examples. The description adds no parameter meaning, such as the rating scale (the schema only says 'e.g. 8'), whether both arrays may be sent, or whether omitting rated_at defaults to now. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Add or update') and resource ('user ratings of movies/shows'), so the agent knows this is an upsert on ratings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_ratings or remove_ratings, leaving the sibling differentiation weak.

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 phrase 'Add or update' implies the create-or-modify use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., authenticated user), and no reference to remove_ratings as the inverse operation.

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