radarr_update_config_downloadclient

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

The description says 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance', which is consistent with the annotation readOnlyHint=false, but it adds no new behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. It does not mention side effects, whether the update is partial or full, or any risks. The annotation already indicates a write operation, so this is largely redundant.

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 very brief (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it is under-specified rather than concisely informative; it omits critical details about scope and parameters. While it is not verbose, it does not earn its place beyond a basic statement.

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 two-parameter update tool with no parameter descriptions and no meaningful usage guidance, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the agent still lacks information about what the 'id' and 'body' represent, making it difficult to invoke correctly. The description does not cover the tool's scope or relationship to similar config-related tools.

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 (id, body) with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., the download client ID) or what structure 'body' should have. With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden, and it fails entirely, providing zero parameter guidance.

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 states a clear action ('Update downloadclient') with a resource, but the resource is ambiguous. The tool name includes 'config' yet the description omits this, making it unclear whether this updates a download client entity or its configuration. It does not distinguish from sibling tool 'radarr_update_downloadclient', which likely handles the actual download client update.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'radarr_update_downloadclient' or 'radarr_get_config_downloadclient'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The description only states the action without any context.

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