check_for_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool is safe by default and that applying an update requires a relaunch, but it does not discuss side effects of reset_updater, the destructive nature of installation, or what happens if apply_update is set without download_update. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 focused sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and default behavior, the second covers optional modes and the required follow-up. There is no filler or redundant prose.

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 three-boolean tool, the description covers the main workflow, optional modes, and sequencing, while the schema fills the parameter details. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe what a check returns, nor does it mention reset_updater, so a couple of minor gaps remain.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with its default and meaning. The description restates download_update and apply_update semantics and adds the relaunch dependency, but that dependency is also present in the schema, so it adds little beyond what structured data already provides.

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 action ('check whether a Tdarr update is available') against a named resource and includes the exact endpoint. The 'defaults to a check only' phrasing also clarifies the tool's scope, distinguishing it from the install/apply behavior it can optionally trigger.

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 clearly explains the default check-only behavior, when to set download_update and apply_update, and explicitly requires calling relaunch_server afterwards. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling update tools like update_node, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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