lidarr_history_blocklist

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels 'lidarr_bulk_delete_blocklist' and 'lidarr_delete_blocklist' as DESTRUCTIVE, and 'lidarr_mark_history_item_failed' as WRITE, which is valuable. The read-only operations are not explicitly marked as safe, but their list-like nature is implied. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 front-loaded with a clear usage pattern ('Pass operation and an arguments dict') and then lists each operation in a compact, consistent format. Each line earns its place, but the overall length is substantial. The bullet-like structure aids readability.

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 tool's complexity (7 sub-operations) and the generic schema, the description covers each operation's purpose and parameters thoroughly. It omits error handling and response details, but an output schema exists to cover return values. The destructive/write mentions add important safety context. Overall, it is reasonably complete for a dispatcher 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 input schema is generic with only 'operation' and an opaque 'arguments' object, providing zero parameter documentation. The description compensates fully by listing each sub-operation's parameters, types, and defaults (e.g., page=1, page_size=10, include_artist=False). This is essential for correct invocation.

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 the tool's domain ('lidarr history blocklist operations') and enumerates seven specific sub-operations, making its purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on history and blocklist functionality. However, it lacks a single specific verb and reads as a collection rather than a primary action.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists operations without explaining context or exclusions. The only implicit hint is the 'DESTRUCTIVE'/'WRITE' flags, which indicate caution but not usage scenarios.

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