create_episodes_subtitles

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no further behavioral context: it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing subtitles), authentication requirements, file constraints, or failure modes. The HTTP method and path are mere restatements of the operation.

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 very concise, consisting of a one-sentence action and a linear list of arguments. It is correctly front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the required parameters without fluff. Structurally, the Args section is readable, though it could benefit from more detailed explanations if space allowed, but nothing is redundant.

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 tool with six required parameters and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers all parameters minimally but omits important context: the expected file format and size, whether existing subtitles are overwritten, authentication requirements, or any dependencies (e.g., the episode must exist). The output schema likely covers return values, but the description still leaves gaps in operational context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides brief labels (e.g., 'Series ID', 'Episode ID') and important clarifications like 'Language code2', 'Forced true/false as string', and 'Subtitles file as file upload object'. However, the descriptions are minimal; they lack details such as language code format (e.g., ISO 639-1), accepted file formats, or constraints on the boolean strings. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 ('Upload') and a specific resource ('episode subtitles'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_movies_subtitles (which handles movies). The HTTP method and path reinforce the action, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_movies_subtitles for movies, or delete_episodes_subtitles for removal). The intended use is only implied by the resource name; no prerequisites, context, or conditions are provided.

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