radarr_update_qualityprofile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance,' which is somewhat redundant. Beyond that, it does not disclose whether the update is a partial or full replacement, side effects on related data, or permission requirements. Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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 with the action. The second sentence 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' adds a safety flag. However, it is extremely sparse and does not contain useful detail, so it loses a point for being under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 the nested object parameters, the existence of an output schema, and the complexity of quality profile updates, this description is drastically inadequate. It provides no context about the structure of the update payload, required fields, or the effect of the update, leaving an agent to rely on assumptions or external knowledge.

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 adds no meaning for the 'id' or 'body' parameters. There is no explanation of what 'body' should contain, nor how 'id' relates to an existing quality profile. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Update quality profiles.' This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools that create, list, get, or delete quality profiles, and from tools targeting quality definitions (e.g., update_qualitydefinition).

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 given on when to use this tool versus creating a new profile, fetching the schema, or updating quality definitions. The description only says 'update,' which implies its use case but provides no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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