Set watch progress

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that the previous state is snapshotted before the write and that it can be reverted with nuvio_undo. It also clarifies the upsert nature ('create or update'). No contradiction with annotations.

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, no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a critical behavioral detail (snapshot/undo). Every word earns its place.

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 tool has a nested entity and 2 parameters, and the description covers the core purpose and undo behavior. However, it does not explain the required fields for different content types (movie vs episode) or the profile_id parameter. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, this leaves gaps for an agent constructing a valid 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'position/duration' and 'movie or episode', which hints at the content_type and two fields, but it ignores the nested entry object's other properties (season, episode, video_id, last_watched) and the profile_id parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema field names.

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 clear verb ('Create or update') and a specific resource ('continue-watching entry'), plus the scope ('for a movie or episode'). This distinguishes it from sibling read/delete tools like nuvio_get_watch_progress and nuvio_delete_watch_progress, so an agent can immediately tell what it does.

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 the tool is for recording a position/duration, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like nuvio_mark_watched (which likely marks as fully watched) or nuvio_get_watch_progress. It gives context (snapshot/undo) but no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance.

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