autobrr_feeds

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description explicitly labels every modifying operation with WRITE and every deleting operation with DESTRUCTIVE, adding clear side-effect disclosures beyond the schema. This gives the agent crucial safety information that the input schema does not convey.

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 well-organized bulleted list with a front-loaded instruction. Each operation occupies one line with a concise summary, and side-effect markers (WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE) are used consistently. This is scannable and appropriately sized for a 12-operation dispatcher.

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 complexity of a multi-operation dispatcher, the description covers the operation inventory and side-effect behavior sufficiently. It leverages the existence of an output schema to avoid explaining return values, but omits authentication/rate-limit details and deeper parameter specifics. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke operations correctly in most cases.

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 input schema is a generic dispatcher with `operation` and a free-form `arguments` dict, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides per-operation signatures (e.g., `autobrr_delete_feed(feed_id)`, `autobrr_toggle_feed_enabled(feed_id, body={...})`) and some inline explanations (e.g., 'body is a partial Feed with a url'), though not every operation's body parameters are fully detailed.

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 feed operations on autobrr and enumerates all supported operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other resource types (actions, filters, indexers). However, the phrasing 'autobrr feeds operations on autobrr' is slightly awkward and the purpose is conveyed more by the operation list than a crisp verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and the context that these are feed operations for autobrr. The description instructs to pass an `operation` and `arguments` dict, and lists the available operations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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