radarr_mark_history_item_failed

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly noting that it modifies the Radarr instance ('WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance') and that it blocklists the release by default. This is useful side-effect information that annotations alone (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not convey. It does not contradict the annotations; rather, it reinforces that this is a state-changing operation.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second highlights the write nature. There is no redundant information, and the most critical details are front-loaded. This is a model of brevity.

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's simplicity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the primary purpose and a side effect, but it omits explicit parameter semantics and any usage alternatives. The lack of parameter guidance is a notable gap, but the tool's low complexity keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explicit explanation of the 'id' parameter. While the tool name implies that 'id' refers to a history item ID, the description does not state this, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning. For a single-param tool, the description should at least mention that 'id' is the identifier of the history item to mark as failed.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a history item as failed.' It also adds a key qualifier, 'blocklists the release by default,' which distinguishes this from merely toggling a flag. The explicit 'WRITE' label further clarifies the operation's nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when a history item should be marked as failed, with the default consequence of blocklisting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as if a user wants to avoid blocklisting or prefers to delete history instead. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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