prowlarr_system

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

The description explicitly marks `system_restart` and `system_shutdown` as 'Destructive -- the server goes offline' and notes that `restore_backup` triggers on next restart. It also explains side effects like `run_command` requiring a `CommandResource` name. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden and does so well, though not every operation gets deep behavioral detail.

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 compact bullet list with each operation on one line, front-loaded with the invocation pattern. It's long of necessity (27 sub-operations) but avoids filler; only minor redundancy is the repeated 'prowlarr_' prefix in every bullet.

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?

With no annotations and a generic schema, the description covers all 27 operations with signatures, defaults, and edge cases (e.g., empty path lists root; level filter values). It also marks destructive operations and gives body examples. For a high-complexity dispatcher, this is a thorough and self-contained reference.

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 only defines a generic `arguments` dict, but the description lists exact signatures for each operation, e.g., `prowlarr_list_filesystem(path='', include_files=None, ...)` with path semantics, and `prowlarr_list_logs` with `level` filter values. For `restore_backup_upload`, it gives the exact body structure. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'prowlarr system operations on Prowlarr' and then enumerates 27 specific system operations (backups, logs, tasks, filesystem, status, routes), each with a verb-object form. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like prowlarr_indexers or prowlarr_applications, which focus on specific resource domains.

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 covers system administration (backups, logs, tasks, server restart/shutdown), and several entries include guidance such as get_api_info 'useful for confirming connectivity and version' and list_filesystem path semantics. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the operation scope makes the intended domain clear.

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