radarr_update_exclusions

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

The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance', which confirms mutation but goes beyond annotations only slightly. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. No further behavioral details are given, such as update semantics or potential side effects.

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 two sentences with zero waste, but it is almost too sparse. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices needed detail.

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 0% parameter coverage and a mutation operation, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what fields the body should contain, whether the update is partial or full, or any other usage context. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the input side remains under-specified.

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 explanation of 'id' or 'body'. While 'id' likely identifies the exclusion and 'body' contains the update payload, the full structure and required fields are left ambiguous, which is inadequate for a write operation.

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 explicitly states 'Update import list exclusions', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_exclusions, delete_exclusions, and list_exclusions.

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 verb 'Update' implies this is for modifying existing exclusions, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage context is only implied.

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