lidarr_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly flags write operations with 'WRITE: this modifies your Lidarr instance' and destructive operations with 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data,' and adds a safety note for delete_rootfolder that it does not delete library files. This is solid disclosure for a multipurpose tool.

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-formatted bullet list with each operation on its own line, including a one-line explanation and safety flags. The opening sentence is slightly redundant ('lidarr storage operations on Lidarr') but the list structure makes it scannable. Every line earns its place without unnecessary prose.

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?

For a router tool with 10 operations, the description covers each operation's purpose, argument signature, and side effects. It even notes the return of `list_rootfolder` ('with free space and default profile ids'). It lacks examples and detailed return values for other operations, but given the complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 has an open-ended `arguments` object with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by showing function signatures for each operation, e.g., `lidarr_create_remotepathmapping(body={})` and `lidarr_delete_remotepathmapping(id)`, indicating the expected argument names and whether they are optional. It does not define the contents of `body`, but the signatures provide meaningful structure.

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 identifies the tool as 'lidarr storage operations on Lidarr' and lists specific storage sub-operations like root folders and remote path mappings. The operation names use clear verbs (create, delete, list, update), making the purpose evident. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the storage-specific scope is distinct.

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 explains how to invoke operations ('Pass `operation` and an `arguments` dict...') but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling lidarr tools. No alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are provided. The operation names imply their usage, but explicit selection criteria are missing.

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