autobrr_indexers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly labels WRITE for create, test, toggle, and update, and labels delete as DESTRUCTIVE. It also gives a sample return for test_indexer_api. However, it does not discuss authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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-structured list with a one-line intro. Each operation is on its own line with a concise description and safety flag. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important instruction (how to invoke) is front-loaded.

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 nine sub-operations, the description covers each operation's purpose and flags mutating operations. It includes a sample return for the test operation and the body shape for toggle. However, it omits detailed body schemas for create/update and does not mention error handling or pagination/list behavior, though an output schema exists to cover return formats.

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 only defines operation and an arguments dict with no property details. The description compensates by giving each operation's expected arguments (e.g., 'autobrr_delete_indexer(indexer_id)' and 'autobrr_toggle_indexer_enabled(indexer_id, body={"enabled": bool})'). It partially clarifies the shape of body but leaves create/update/test body content unspecified. Thus it adds value beyond the schema but not complete semantics.

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 begins with 'autobrr indexers operations on autobrr' and then enumerates nine specific sub-operations (create, delete, get, list, test, toggle, update). Each sub-operation has a clear verb and resource (e.g., 'List configured indexers'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools like autobrr_filters or autobrr_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 instructs users to 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters', which clarifies the invocation pattern. It also lists all available operations, making it clear that indexer-related tasks belong here. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or direct users to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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