bili_browse_advance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the one behavior that matters most: this is local bookkeeping (saving resume position) with no remote account mutation. It says nothing about idempotency, whether the decision affects later browse_state results, or what happens with a stale/invalid ref.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Phrasing 'explicitly choose selected/skipped/position' is slightly compressed to the point of ambiguity, but nothing is wasted.

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 the local-vs-remote distinction is covered. However, for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, leaving the decision vocabulary and 'part' undefined is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely gestures at decision values ('selected/skipped') and at position_seconds ('position'), but never defines the allowed decision strings (no enum in the schema either) and never mentions 'part' at all. An agent still has to guess the accepted values.

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 concrete action on a named object: choose selected/skipped/position for a returned video ref and persist a local resume position. The closing clause ('does not click, watch or change any Bilibili account state') implicitly separates it from bili_watch_video and bili_watch_status, though that contrast is never made explicit by name.

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?

'for a returned video ref' implies it is called after a search/discover/browse call produced refs, and the negative clause tells the agent not to use it to actually watch. But no sibling is named as the alternative for the watching path, and no preconditions for calling it are stated.

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