radarr_bulk_edit_moviefiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds an explicit 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' warning, which reinforces the state-changing behavior. However, it doesn't provide details on what exactly is modified, whether the operation is reversible, or any consequences beyond the generic write notice; still, the annotation coverage lowers the bar and the explicit warning earns a 3.

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 extremely short and to the point, with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides a necessary safety warning. It's concise though it sacrifices informative detail.

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 involves a bulk mutation and an opaque 'body' parameter, the description and schema together are incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to construct a valid request, what movie file properties can be edited, or what the response will contain. The output schema exists, but no parameter semantics are provided.

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 input schema has a single 'body' object with no description, and the schema coverage is 0%. The description fails to mention what fields the body should contain (e.g., movie file IDs, values to update), leaving the agent to guess the entire payload. This is a critical 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?

Description clearly states the core action ('Bulk update movie files') and labels it as WRITE, which tells the agent this is a mutation operation on Radarr. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like radarr_bulk_update_moviefile or radarr_update_moviefile, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. the many sibling update/list tools. The 'WRITE' warning is a side effect flag, not a usage guideline. There are no mentions of alternatives, prerequisites, or context.

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