add_movie

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

The description discloses the internal two-step behavior ('Looks the movie up first, then posts it'), which is valuable. However, with no annotations and no mention of side effects like automatic indexer search (search_for_movie defaults to true), duplicate handling, or permission requirements, behavioral coverage remains partial.

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 contain the essential action, workflow order, and prerequisite tool references with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the required workflow and relies on the schema for optional fields. It doesn't describe the return value or what happens if the movie is already in the library, but the provided guidance is sufficient to call the tool correctly with valid inputs.

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?

The schema already documents all 8 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-tool semantics by telling the agent to source tmdb_id via lookup_movie and validate root_folder_path/quality_profile_id via list_* tools, giving practical meaning beyond the schema.

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 action 'Add a movie to the library by TMDB id' and differentiates it from sibling tools like update_movie and delete_movie by specifying the exact resource, input key, and required configuration (root folder, quality profile).

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to use list_root_folders, list_quality_profiles, and lookup_movie to prepare valid inputs, which is excellent contextual guidance. It does not mention when to prefer alternatives like update_movie for already-imported movies, so exclusion criteria are missing.

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