radarr_update_indexer

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' essentially repeats the annotation without adding new context such as side effects (overwriting existing settings) or the need for re-testing. No additional behavioral insights are provided.

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 avoids fluff, but it is under-specified. The 'WRITE' sentence is largely redundant given the annotations and could have been omitted in favor of more useful parameter or usage information. It is concise but not well-prioritized.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which covers return values), the description misses critical context: how to identify the target indexer, what the 'body' should contain, and how this differs from bulk_update_indexer or config update tools. The tool is too complex (with a nested free-form body) for such a minimal description, leaving the definition incomplete.

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. While 'id' and 'force_save' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'body' is a free-form object (additionalProperties:true) with no schema or description, leaving its structure and purpose completely unspecified. The description fails 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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('indexers'), and the 'WRITE' marker clarifies it is a mutation. It distinguishes from non-update indexer tools (create/delete) though not from bulk_update_indexer, which is a separate sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bulk_update_indexer or update_config_indexer. The 'WRITE' label implies mutation but does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an existing indexer id, or when to choose other tools.

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