radarr_action_metadata

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, and the description adds a plain-language 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' which reassures the write nature. It also reveals that the 'name' parameter selects the action, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or allowed actions, which limits transparency.

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 and avoids fluff, but the first sentence is awkwardly phrased ('on a action') and could be clearer. The 'WRITE' hint is useful but placed at the end, reducing front-loading effectiveness.

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 tool appears to be a generic action runner for a metadata resource, but the description fails to explain what metadata is, which actions are available, or what the 'body' parameter contains. With output schema present, return values aren't needed, but the operation semantics remain obscure, making the tool difficult 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter explanations. It clarifies that 'name' selects the action, but the 'body' parameter is entirely unexplained, and no valid action names are enumerated. This leaves the agent guessing about the most critical input.

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 tautological and grammatically incorrect, restating the tool name without clarifying what 'metadata' is or what the action accomplishes. The only useful clue is 'name selects the action,' which hints at the parameter but does not define the tool's purpose.

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. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios. It is purely a generic statement with no actionable context.

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