Save Shows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeat-safety profile is covered. The description adds the 50-item cap and the fact that IDs or URIs are accepted, but says nothing about what happens with already-saved shows, invalid IDs, or permission requirements. Useful but thin given annotations do most of the work.

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?

One-line purpose statement up front, then a single Args entry — nothing superfluous. The Google-style Args block is a slightly formal wrapper for one parameter but does not waste tokens.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety and idempotency for a single-parameter mutation. What's missing is any routing guidance against the large family of adjacent save/follow/check tools, which matters given 45 siblings.

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% — the schema only says 'array of strings' with no per-parameter description — so the description carries the burden and does compensate by specifying accepted formats (IDs or URIs) and a hard limit of 50. It stops short of example values or error behavior for malformed identifiers.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Save (follow) podcast shows to the user's library' — and the parenthetical disambiguates 'save' as following. The resource noun ('shows') distinguishes it from the many sibling save/remove tools (save_albums, save_episodes, save_audiobooks), though it does not explicitly name any of them.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as save_episodes, follow_playlist, or check_saved_shows, nor any note on preconditions (e.g., valid IDs, auth scope). The only contextual hint is the implicit library-writing nature of the verb.

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