Mark as watched

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

Annotations already flag this as a mutating, non-idempotent write, and the description adds meaningful context: the previous state is snapshotted before the write and can be reverted with nuvio_undo. This goes beyond the structured fields and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the undo behavior following immediately. There is no filler, and every phrase contributes useful information.

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 write and undo behavior are covered, but for a mutating tool with a nested object and no output schema, it leaves gaps around optional fields like `watched_at`, duplicate-entry behavior, and expected return value. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 prose needed to compensate for parameter meaning, but it only loosely identifies `item` as the entry and `profile_id` as the profile. It leaves `content_type`, `watched_at`, `season`, and `episode` semantics to the schema, so an agent cannot fully construct a correct call from the description alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add an entry to a profile's watch history.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/delete watch-history tools and from watch-progress tools. The title reinforces the intent without carrying the definition.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, such as when to prefer nuvio_set_watch_progress or nuvio_get_watch_history. It mentions nuvio_undo for recovery, but that is a post-write fallback, not guidance for selecting this tool over siblings.

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