radarr_update_downloadclient

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's explicit 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' adds useful context about the operation's side effect. However, it does not disclose other behavioral details like how existing settings are affected or what happens if the id is invalid.

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 short and front-loaded, but one sentence merely echoes the tool name 'Update downloadclient.' The second sentence adds a write warning. It is concise yet lacks substantive content, so it earns a mid score.

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?

With 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, an output schema (not shown), and a write operation, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the request body structure, the role of force_save, potential errors, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (id, body, force_save). It only implies via 'Update' that an id and new configuration are needed, leaving the body schema and force_save semantics entirely unexplained.

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 'Update downloadclient' with a specific verb and resource, making its purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like radarr_bulk_update_downloadclient or radarr_test_downloadclient.

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 over alternatives such as creating, deleting, bulk updating, or testing download clients. It only states the operation without any context regarding prerequisites or exclusions.

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