prowlarr_notifications

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 does well by noting that force_save 'bypasses validation', that test_notification sends a test 'without saving it', and that test_all_notifications sends through 'every configured notification'. It does not mention side effects like permanence of delete or auth requirements, but given the range of operations, the provided details add meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 long due to the number of operations, but every line is informative and there is no fluff. The structure is consistent with a clear formatting pattern, and the initial summary makes the tool's purpose immediately clear. It could be slightly more compact, but the density of useful information justifies the length.

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 multi-operation dispatcher nature, the description covers the main function of each operation and key parameter variations. It references an output schema and points to related operations (e.g., schemas for creation). It doesn't detail error handling or return structures, but the presence of an output schema mitigates that gap. Overall, it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 generic 'arguments' with 0% coverage, but the description compensates significantly by listing each operation's signature and parameter purposes, e.g., 'body is a NotificationResource (fetch prowlarr_list_notification_schemas for providers)' and 'force_save bypasses validation'. While it doesn't define the exact structure of the body dictionary, it directs to a schema, which is sufficient for an agent to proceed.

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 this tool handles 'prowlarr notifications operations' and enumerates nine specific operations with precise verbs (create, delete, get, list, test, update). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on notifications, and the operation list leaves no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 clear context for using the tool and even intra-tool guidance, such as 'Read this before creating or updating a notification' for prowlarr_list_notification_schemas. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the name and scope make the appropriate use case obvious. It could explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is strong.

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