autobrr_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly flags update_config as a WRITE that modifies the instance, and enumerates supported fields. It does not cover potential side effects like requiring restarts, but the main behavior is 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?

The description is short, well-structured with bullet points, and every sentence adds value. It front-loads the key instruction to pass operation+arguments, then details each operation without 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?

The description covers both operations completely, including return info for get and supported fields for update. An output schema exists (not shown) but the description still provides sufficient context for a two-operation config tool.

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 only provides 'operation' and a generic 'arguments' dict, but the description explains each operation's parameters, including which fields update supports and what get returns. This fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 it handles autobrr config operations, listing two specific sub-operations (get and update) with detailed return/update fields. It is distinct from sibling tools like autobrr_filters or autobrr_release, which handle other parts of the system.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate (config management) and explains the operation+arguments pattern. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is obvious from the tool name and operation list.

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