radarr_update_config_mediamanagement

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the explicit 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' adds little beyond what is structurally provided. The description does not disclose side effects, whether the update is partial or full, or any required permissions, so transparency is minimal.

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 short and front-loaded, with no redundant words. The two sentences are efficient, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than well-chosen content. Still, it earns a decent score for not wasting tokens.

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 has an unannotated body parameter and no parameter descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain how to construct the request, what 'mediamanagement' configuration includes, or how to target the correct resource. Even with an output schema present, the input side is entirely 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain the 'id' or 'body' parameters. The agent is left without any clues about what the id refers to (presumably config id) or what structure the body should have. This is a critical gap for a tool with a free-form body object.

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 'Update mediamanagement.' restates the tool name without adding specificity about what 'mediamanagement' entails or what fields are affected. It does not distinguish this tool from other update_config_* siblings beyond the resource name, and the added 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' focuses on behavior rather than purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_config_mediamanagement. The only additional note warns that it modifies the instance, which is a caution rather than usage direction. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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