autobrr_actions

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly labels create, toggle, and update as WRITE (modifies the instance) and delete as DESTRUCTIVE (deletes data). This is valuable, though it does not mention permissions, idempotency, or rate limits.

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 a clean bulleted list, each operation on its own line with a terse explanation. The opening line explains the dispatch pattern. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 multi-operation dispatcher, it covers all five operations and flags write/destructive behavior. It would be more complete with detailed parameter requirements for create/update, but the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. Adequately complete given the complexity.

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?

Since the input schema provides only generic `operation` and `arguments` fields, the description adds essential meaning by showing operation-specific parameters like `action_id` and `body={}`. For toggle, it even specifies the body format (`{"enabled": bool}`), but does not fully document body schemas for create/update.

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 this tool handles 'autobrr actions operations' and enumerates all five specific operations (create, delete, list, toggle, update). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like autobrr_filters or autobrr_indexers, as it's explicitly scoped to actions.

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 by listing operations and instructing to pass an `operation` and `arguments`, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.

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