radarr_update_config_naming

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE' adds no new safety information. The description fails to disclose important behavioral details such as whether the body is a full replacement or partial update, what the id refers to, or any side effects. With annotations covering the basic write nature, the description contributes minimally to transparency.

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?

At two short sentences, the description is concise and front-loads the primary action. However, the brevity sacrifices substance, making it less informative than it should be for the tool's complexity.

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 complex body object and the existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about naming configuration, what data the body should contain, how the id is used, or what the response will be. An agent has almost no basis for correct invocation.

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 two parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain them at all. The 'id' and 'body' fields are left completely ambiguous, especially the body being an open object with additionalProperties. The description adds no value beyond the schema, leaving an agent without any guidance on how to construct a request.

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 phrase 'Update naming' conveys a clear mutation action on the naming configuration, and it is distinct from sibling read tools like 'radarr_get_config_naming'. However, the description depends heavily on the tool name for specificity and does not elaborate on what 'naming' encompasses.

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, prerequisites, or expected usage patterns. The only extra context is the safety warning 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance,' which is a caution rather than usage direction.

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