radarr_update_config_indexer

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

The description explicitly states 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance', which adds a useful warning about the side effect. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false) but is generic and does not reveal any specific behavioral traits such as idempotency, partial vs. full updates, or whether the operation can be undone. No contradiction with annotations.

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, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds a critical warning. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing, making it easy to scan.

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 complexity (nested 'body' object, required 'id') and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what an update to an indexer config entails, how to construct the body, or how this differs from other indexer update endpoints. The output schema may cover return values, but the input side is left 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'id' or 'body' parameters. The agent cannot infer what 'id' refers to (likely an indexer ID) or what structure the 'body' object should have (especially with additionalProperties: true). The description fails entirely to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Update' and the resource 'indexers', clearly indicating a modification operation. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'radarr_update_indexer' which also updates indexers. The 'WRITE:' prefix adds clarity about the operation type but not about the specific config-level scope implied by the name.

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 regarding when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'radarr_update_indexer' or 'radarr_get_config_indexer'. There are no context signals, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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