lidarr_import_lists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It consistently labels operations as 'WRITE: this modifies your Lidarr instance' or 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' (e.g., lidarr_delete_importlist, lidarr_test_importlist). This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the schema. However, it omits other potential behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error cases, so it is not a perfect disclosure.

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 structured bullet list with each operation on its own line, making it easy to scan. The opening sentence explains the dispatch pattern. While repetitive (each WRITE/DESTRUCTIVE note is repeated), it is still efficient for a tool with 16 operations. It is arguably longer than necessary, but every line adds the operation name and mutability flag, earning its place.

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 that an output schema exists and the tool has moderate complexity (16 distinct operations), the description covers all operations, their signatures, and mutability implications. It does not dive into prerequisites or edge-case behaviors, but for a dispatch tool this is a solid level of detail. The lack of annotations and parameter descriptions is partially offset by the operation list.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and gives some brief hints (e.g., 'body carries ids', 'body is a list of resources', 'body is an ImportListResource'), which adds meaning. However, many parameters remain unexplained (e.g., 'name', 'force_save', 'force_test'), and the semantics are incomplete. This is a partial compensation, hence a 3.

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 'lidarr import lists operations on Lidarr' and then enumerates all 16 operations with specific verbs and resources (e.g., 'Create an import list', 'Bulk delete import lists'). Each operation clearly specifies its action, and the overall scope is unmistakable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which target different categories (e.g., lidarr_indexers, lidarr_tags).

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 list of operations provides clear context for when to use each operation (e.g., 'lidarr_list_importlist() — List import lists'). The opening instruction 'Pass `operation` and an `arguments` dict' tells the agent how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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