prowlarr_application_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden of disclosing side effects, permissions, or return value. It only says 'Run a named action' without explaining whether the action is destructive, whether it triggers asynchronous processes, or what the response contains. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a helpful example. No fluff or repetition; every word earns 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 the tool's complexity and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits how to discover valid action names, what the output looks like, and any preconditions or side effects. The output schema exists but the description adds no guidance on interpreting the result.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'body is the ApplicationResource' but does not clarify the 'name' parameter beyond implying it is the action name. Valid action names or where to find them are not provided, leaving a significant gap.

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 'Run a named action on an application' with a concrete example ('sync indexers'), distinguishing it from CRUD operations like create/update/delete. The verb 'Run' and resource 'application' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for non-standard application actions via the example, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., update_application) or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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