update_watched_minutes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', implying mutation, but does not state whether the minutes value overwrites existing progress, whether completion status is affected, what side effects occur, or what the return behavior is.

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 clear sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so minimal that conciseness comes at the expense of useful context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. The agent lacks information about how to verify success, whether progress is cumulative or overwritten, and how this relates to sibling marking tools. Simple as the parameters are, the behavioral and usage gaps remain significant.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it barely does. It implies that 'minutes' is the watched count and 'lecture_id' identifies a lecture, but it adds no detail about format, meaning, or constraints beyond the minimal schema information.

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 a specific action ('Update') and resource ('how many minutes of a lecture have been watched'), making the tool's core purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like mark_lecture_completed or mark_lecture_incomplete, but the focus on minute counts distinguishes it enough for basic identification.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mark_lecture_completed or mark_lecture_incomplete. There is no mention of partial progress tracking, overwriting behavior, or when a different completion-related tool should be preferred.

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