radarr_action_indexer

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

While annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), the description only adds a redundant 'WRITE' warning. It does not disclose what type of actions are available, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects beyond modifying the instance.

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 short but poorly worded ('on a action' is grammatically incorrect) and under-specified. It lacks essential details, so the brevity is a liability, not a strength.

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?

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with a required name parameter, an optional nested body, and no parameter descriptions. It doesn't explain how to construct the body or what output to expect, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke correctly.

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 fully explain parameters. It only states that 'name selects the action', giving minimal meaning to name, but does not list valid values or explain the 'body' object at all. The nested body parameter is completely undocumented.

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 'Run an action on a action' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what the action does, what resource it affects, or how it differs from sibling action tools. It fails to mention 'indexer' or provide a clear verb-resource pair.

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 usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus other action tools (e.g., radarr_action_downloadclient) or how to discover valid action names. The description does not state expected input or prerequisites.

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