patch_public_share_by_slug_progress

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

Annotations already establish idempotent=true and non-read-only, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the useful context that the body is open-ended and must be discovered via GET or /schema rather than being fully specified statically, but it does not disclose side effects or auth requirements.

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?

Three compact components: a one-line purpose statement, the endpoint, and a minimal args list. The critical guidance about reading GET/schema is included without redundant prose.

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 a two-parameter PATCH with an output schema and annotations covering idempotency/destructiveness, the description provides enough to act: it identifies the slug, explains the body, and tells where to learn the expected fields. It does not over-explain return values, which is appropriate given the output schema.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds some meaning by marking slug as a path parameter and body as the request payload, and it directs the agent to discover the body fields from the matching GET or /schema endpoint. It does not enumerate what fields the body expects, leaving much of the semantic burden on external discovery.

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 opening phrase 'Update share progress' names a specific action and resource, and the endpoint path /public/share/{slug}/progress reinforces the target. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_public_share_by_slug, but the description does not explicitly contrast it with those alternatives.

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 description implies the tool is for updating progress on a public share and gives a practical prerequisite: read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first. However, it never states when to choose this tool over sibling progress/update endpoints such as patch_me_progress_by_library_item_id_by_episode_id.

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