mark_unwatched

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resets watch progress, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it removes from continue watching, requires user authentication, or triggers other state changes). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, missing opportunities to elaborate on usage and parameters.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and mutates state, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., user must be authenticated), or how the rating_key is obtained.

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%, yet the description adds no information about the single parameter 'rating_key'. The parameter is required with no explanation of what it represents or how to obtain it. The description should explain that rating_key identifies the media item.

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 clearly states the action: 'Mark a media item as unwatched, resetting its watch progress.' It specifies the resource (media item) and the effect (resetting progress). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'mark_watched' (the opposite) and 'set_playback_progress' (a more general progress adjustment).

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?

No guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like 'remove_from_continue_watching'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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