set_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers two genuinely useful behavioral disclosures: movies do not support watching/hold, and completed silently becomes watching for still-airing shows. This goes well beyond the schema, though it omits details like overwrite behavior, permissions, or return semantics.

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-fragmented into purpose, valid values, and edge cases. Every sentence adds value, and the most important behavioral caveats are clearly highlighted.

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?

The description covers status values and notable edge behavior, giving an agent useful invocation context despite the opaque schema. It is not fully complete because the type parameter is unexplained and there is no guidance on the shape or required fields of items, so an agent may still guess incorrectly on first call.

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 adds meaning to the status parameter by listing valid values, which the schema does not provide. But it says nothing about the required type parameter or how items should be structured, leaving significant parameter semantics uncovered at 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Move titles into a watchlist status') and lists the valid status values, making the resource and operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like mark_watched, but the 'watchlist status' framing distinguishes it from related tools.

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 makes the intended use context clear: updating a title's watchlist status. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as mark_watched or remove_from_history, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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