grab_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects, and it does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: the release will be grabbed even if it was rejected. This warning is essential for safe invocation. It does not cover response/error behavior or reversibility, but the most critical behavioral trait is present.

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 sentences with no filler. It leads with the action, then provides the critical warning. 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?

Given the low complexity, three parameters, and no output schema, the description plus the fully described schema provides enough for correct invocation. It names the source of the release and the caution about rejections. It could mention the optional movie_id use case, but the schema covers it, and no other critical context is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for 'guid' and 'indexer_id,' and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states. It implicitly ties the parameters to search_releases through 'from search_releases,' but that is already in the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send a release from search_releases to the download client.' It clearly identifies the source, destination, and action, and the rejection warning adds a distinguishing nuance. This is enough to separate it from siblings like grab_queue_items, which operate on the queue rather than search results.

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 states when to use the tool: after obtaining a release from search_releases. It also gives an explicit precondition: 'check the rejections first,' because Radarr grabs it even if rejected. It does not name alternative tools explicitly or give a when-not-to-use, so it is not a full 5.

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