profilarr_update_backup_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the updatable fields with allowed values and states 'Returns updated settings'. However, it doesn't mention behavior when no parameters are provided, validation, or whether this is a partial update.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the primary verb first. Each sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, and return. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter optional schema and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter constraints, and return. It lacks explicit usage alternatives but is otherwise complete for a straightforward update 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides enums for schedule ('hourly|daily|weekly|monthly'), a range for retention_days ('1-365'), and names enabled, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't fully explain the effect of each parameter, but it covers all three.

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 opens with 'Update backup settings', a specific verb+resource, and clarifies the exact updatable fields ('Only schedule ..., retention_days ..., and enabled are updatable'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like profilarr_get_backup_settings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when it would be inappropriate (e.g., read-only contexts). The 'Only' clause is a constraint, not usage direction, and no sibling tool is mentioned.

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