patch_subtitles

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds some behavioral context by naming the concrete modification modes (sync, translate, extract) and PATCH semantics, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether files are overwritten in place, whether network/services are required for translation, or what happens on failure.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, a useful endpoint line, and then a compact Args list. Every line earns its place; there is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 13-parameter tool, the parameter documentation is nearly complete, and the output schema covers return values. However, the definition lacks guidance on when to choose this over sibling subtitle-patching tools and does not clarify preconditions or side effects, which are important for safe 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter understanding, and it succeeds: every parameter is documented with allowable values or usage notes, including conditional requirements like subtitles_id being required for the extract action. This is exactly the compensation needed.

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 clear operation: apply mods/tools to external subtitles, and it enumerates the recognized actions (sync, translate, extract). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from the sibling tools by the phrase 'external subtitles,' though it does not explicitly contrast 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 'external subtitles' and PATCH endpoint imply the intended use case, and the action list signals what it can do. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of patch_episodes_subtitles or patch_movies_subtitles, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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