Отметить просмотр

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail for action='track': episodes are loaded and indexed, enabling search and backlog counting. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though per-action side effects are not exhaustively documented.

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: one front-loaded purpose sentence and one focused sentence about the track-specific behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema contents.

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?

With six action variants and five parameters, the description covers the overall purpose and one important action-specific consequence, but it omits action-parameter requirements such as progress needing episode or rate needing rating, and it does not explain the note parameter. The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but an agent still has to infer the per-action call contract.

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 covers show, action, and episode; the description adds meaning by glossing several action enum values in natural language and explaining the track action's effect. It does not clarify note or rating semantics, nor dependencies between actions and optional parameters, so with 60% schema coverage the added value is only partial.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Изменить состояние просмотра' (change viewing state) and lists concrete actions such as subscribe, mark episode, rate, and drop. This makes it clear that the tool mutates tracking records, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like show_search or watch_next.

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 usage: it is the tool for updating viewing/tracking state, while siblings are search/profile tools, and the note about action='track' indicates when that particular action is relevant. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use the tool, leaving routing partially to inference.

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