patch_media_progression

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds important behavioral context by specifying the scope ('current user's') and the purpose (resume functionality), going beyond the annotation basics.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical tip for one parameter without any fluff or redundancy.

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?

For a simple update operation, it covers what, when, and one key parameter. With an output schema present and no complex edge cases, the missing details (return value, error handling) are not critical, though a note on overwrite semantics could have pushed it higher.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description explicitly explains workspace_id and gives context for last_watched_time ('seconds'), but media_id is not explicitly described, leaving it to inference.

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 ('Update the current user's last watched position in a media asset') with a specific resource (media asset) and units (seconds), distinguishing it from related tools like patch_content_progression.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it ('Call periodically during playback to enable resume functionality') and gives a concrete instruction for one parameter (get workspace_id from list_workspaces()). This leaves no ambiguity about invocation timing.

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