radarr_update_moviefile

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

The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance', which reinforces the readOnlyHint=false annotation but adds no new behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to existing data. Given the annotations already cover read/write safety, this is minimal extra value.

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 short but under-specified. It consists of two sentences, but the second sentence merely restates the write nature. It is not concise in a helpful way because it omits essential information, making it more of an under-specification than a well-structured succinct description.

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 accepts a nested body object with additionalProperties true, and an output schema exists, but the description gives no information about the expected input structure, what the update does, or what the response contains. This is critically incomplete for an agent to invoke it correctly, even with the schema present.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'id' or 'body' parameters. With only 'Update movie files', there is no indication of what the id refers to or what the body object should contain. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema 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 'Update movie files' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (movie files), distinguishing it from similar tools like 'update_movie' or 'bulk_update_moviefile' by the specific resource. However, it lacks detail on what aspects of movie files are updated, so it's 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why one would choose this over other update tools (e.g., radarr_bulk_update_moviefile). This is merely a bare statement with no usage context.

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