check_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('marks as watched') without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, side effects (e.g., updates to user profiles), rate limits, or error handling. It mentions batch support, which adds some context, but overall leaves critical mutation behavior underspecified.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial batch operation detail. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning 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?

Given the tool's mutation nature (implied by 'marks'), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, response format, error cases, or how it differs from similar tools like 'set_movie_watch_status', making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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. It clarifies that 'episode_id' can be a single integer or a list of integers for batch operations, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's structural definition. However, it doesn't explain ID formats or constraints, leaving some gaps.

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 the specific action ('Marks... as watched') and resource ('a specific episode by its ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'uncheck_episode' (which presumably unmarks) and 'get_viewed_episodes' (which retrieves). It goes beyond tautology by specifying the operation's scope.

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 for marking episodes as watched, with no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'set_movie_watch_status' or 'watched_movies'. It mentions batch operations, which provides some context but lacks clear when/when-not directives or prerequisite information.

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