Set watch progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write and non-destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it snapshots previous state before writing, supports dry_run (partially also in schema), and points to nuvio_undo for revert. This goes beyond the annotation baseline by disclosing the safety mechanism and recovery path, though it doesn't address external side effects hinted by openWorldHint=true.

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 no waste: the first states the core action and scope, the second discloses safety behaviors (dry_run, snapshot, revert). Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place. Ideal size for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 3 params and nested entries, the description covers the write intent and safety, but omits important context: it never mentions profile_id (defaults to 1) or that entries are grouped per profile, and doesn't explain required fields like content_id/content_type. With no output schema, an agent still needs to inspect the schema for essential payload details. The mention of nuvio_undo helps, but profile context and parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 33% (only dry_run has a description). The description compensates partially by explaining that entries carry 'position/duration' and target 'movies or episodes', giving meaning to those fields. But it leaves most parameters (content_id, content_type, season, episode, video_id, last_watched, profile_id) undocumented both in schema and description, so it doesn't fully bridge the low-coverage gap.

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 verb ('Create or update') and resource ('continue-watching entries'), scoped to 'position/duration' for 'movies or episodes, in bulk'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nuvio_get_watch_progress (read), nuvio_delete_watch_progress (delete), and nuvio_mark_watched (mark as watched), so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 implies usage context: bulk writing of watch progress with dry_run support and undo capability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it name sibling tools like nuvio_mark_watched or nuvio_delete_watch_progress. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it lacks clear exclusion criteria.

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