Add movie to watchlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions a default collection name but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are allowed), authorization needs, or whether the tool is destructive. This is minimal disclosure.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and then adds a default detail. Every sentence is useful.

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 the tool has 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., need to search for movie first), or how 'information' and 'creatorUserId' affect behavior. The coverage is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 only adds meaning for the 'collectionName' parameter (default value). The other three parameters (metadataId, information, creatorUserId) are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain about the role of these parameters.

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 the action ('Add a movie metadata item') and the target resource ('your movie watchlist collection'). It also specifies a default collection name, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ryot_add_show_to_watchlist or ryot_add_game_to_backlog.

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 implicitly suggests use for adding movies to a watchlist, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ryot_add_to_collection. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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