autobrr_irc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by labeling each operation as WRITE or DESTRUCTIVE, such as 'WRITE: this modifies your autobrr instance' and 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data.' It also adds useful specifics like 'channel is the channel name without the leading #.' It stops short of detailing authentication or error behavior, but the output schema mitigates return-value concerns.

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 one-line overview. Each entry is necessary given the dispatcher design, and there is no redundant filler. The formatting makes scanning for operations easy.

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 all ten operations in the enum, maps their parameters, and flags write/destructive behavior. It misses some context like authentication prerequisites or error semantics, but given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select the right operation and invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by listing the required parameters for each operation in function signatures, e.g., 'autobrr_get_irc_message_history(network_id, channel)'. It also clarifies that `body` is a dict and explains the channel format. It does not specify types or requiredness for every parameter, but it provides essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 identifies the tool as handling 'autobrr irc operations' and then enumerates every specific operation with a verb and resource (e.g., 'autobrr_create_irc_channel', 'autobrr_delete_irc_network'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other autobrr domains like actions, filters, or indexers.

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 opening instruction—'Pass `operation` and an `arguments` dict matching that operation's parameters'—provides clear usage guidance for the dispatcher pattern. While it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings, the scope ('irc operations') and the per-operation list make the context clear, and there are no misleading alternatives.

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