create_shows_by_id_progress_watched_reset

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

The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the POST method and the action 'Reset show progress.' It does not explain what resetting entails (e.g., whether it clears all episode progress), nor does it note any side effects. Annotations already indicate mutability (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive nature, so the description adds little novel context.

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 compact and well-structured: it starts with the purpose, then the HTTP method and path, then annotated arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy. The reading order is logical and easy to follow.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations provide mutability flags, the description covers the basics for invoking the tool. However, it lacks clarity on what 'reset' actually does (e.g., scope of progress cleared) and how it differs from the delete sibling. The direction to read the schema compensates for the opaque body, but the overall context is incomplete for a nuanced decision.

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 description enriches the 'id' parameter by noting it can be an id or slug, which the schema does not. For 'body', it provides a helpful strategy (read the matching GET or /schema endpoint) to discover expected fields, but does not enumerate them. Since schema coverage is 0%, this pointer is valuable but still leaves the agent to investigate further.

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 'Reset show progress.' which is a specific action on a show's watched progress. It names the resource and verb. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling delete_shows_by_id_progress_watched_reset, and the 'create_' prefix in the name could be misleading, though the description clarifies the intended action.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only instructs reading a GET or /schema for the body fields, which is about payload construction, not selection of this endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer this over the delete counterpart.

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