Mark media/game progress

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 actions but does not disclose behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., setting state to COMPLETED also sets progress to 100%), interaction between actions and parameters, or whether updates are incremental. The schema's parameter descriptions provide minimal context, but the description adds no extra behavioral clarity.

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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's generic nature and actions. It front-loads key information ('Generic progress tool') and avoids fluff. Minor improvement would be to structure it for scanning.

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 13 parameters including media-specific fields (e.g., showEpisodeNumber, mangaChapterNumber) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter dependencies, relevance to different media types, or what happens after invoking actions (e.g., response or state changes). A more comprehensive description is needed for this complex tool.

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 only 38%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The tool description does not clarify any parameters beyond listing actions in the text. For a low-coverage tool, the description should compensate by explaining key parameters (e.g., state, percent, timestamps) but fails to do so.

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 it is a 'Generic progress tool' for 'any Ryot metadata item', and lists the available actions (start, complete, drop, hold, update percent). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific media types (e.g., ryot_mark_game_completed).

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 calls itself 'generic', implying it can be used as a unified alternative to specific progress tools, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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