radarr_create_notification

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation modifying the Radarr instance, which adds context beyond the annotation readOnlyHint=false. It clearly warns about side effects. However, it doesn't mention other behaviors like validation or duplicate handling, but with annotations present, this level is adequate.

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 concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is meaningful, and it avoids unnecessary 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?

For a create tool with an open-ended body parameter, the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected input structure or mention related tools like radarr_get_notification_schema, which would help construct a valid request. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but input semantics are lacking.

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 two parameters (body, force_save) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanation of what 'body' should contain or the meaning of 'force_save'. The schema is open-ended (additionalProperties: true), so the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names. This is a significant 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?

The description clearly states 'Create notification providers' with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_update_notification, radarr_delete_notification, and radarr_list_notification. The explicit 'WRITE' label reinforces the action.

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 creating notification providers but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., test_notification, update_notification) or any prerequisites. It is minimally sufficient but lacks exclusion or context.

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