radarr_update_metadata

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

The description explicitly states 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance', which adds a mutability warning beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation. This is useful context, but it does not disclose specific behaviors like which fields are affected or whether changes are reversible. Annotations already cover the safety profile, so this is acceptable but not rich.

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 concise, with only two sentences, and the main verb is front-loaded. However, it would benefit from including a brief parameter summary without adding fluff, so it is concise but slightly under-specified.

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?

The tool has a nested object body and an output schema, but the description provides no context about what to supply, what the update entails, or what the response contains. With 0% schema coverage and only a two-sentence description, the tool is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 parameters (id, body, force_save). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, offering no meaning for what these parameters do or how to use them.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'metadata providers', clearly indicating the operation target. It distinguishes from siblings like list/delete/get metadata by the update focus. However, it lacks detail on what 'update' entails, so not a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as radarr_update_config_metadata or radarr_get_metadata. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios that warrant this specific update call.

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