radarr_commit_manual_import

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the explicit 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' statement, reinforcing the mutation aspect but not detailing side effects, idempotency, or prerequisites. Some value added but limited.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear parameter hint. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a write operation, the description lacks critical context: no indication of prerequisites (e.g., fetching manual import items first), no mention of idempotency, and no explanation of the outcome. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but workflow and side effects remain unexplained.

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% and the only parameter 'body' has no description. The description states body is a list of manual import items, which adds some meaning, but it does not describe the structure of individual items or required fields, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 the tool commits a manual import, using a specific verb ('Commit') and resource ('manual import'). It also clarifies the body is a list of manual import items, distinguishing this from list_manualimport.

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 implies usage for finalizing manual imports but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_manualimport, nor any workflow context. The WRITE hint offers minimal direction.

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