update_scrobble

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

Annotations already cover mutability (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the purpose, such as whether play count is incremented or if repeated calls change state, so it offers little value beyond annotations.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and a clear parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids unnecessary content, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and has an output schema plus annotations, but the description lacks important invocation context. It doesn't state whether key or uri is required, how to handle cases where both are provided, or how this action relates to playback state. This is a notable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: identifier as the media provider, key as the ratingKey, and uri with explicit format examples. This adds real meaning, though it does not clarify which parameters are required or how they relate to each other.

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 'Mark an item as played' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly conveying the action. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like update_unscrobble, but the term 'scrobble' and the played/unplayed distinction are enough to differentiate in most cases.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_unscrobble or update_rate. There are no prerequisites, usage scenarios, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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