radarr_update_remotepathmapping

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

The description explicitly labels this as a WRITE operation and states it modifies the Radarr instance, which adds a warning beyond the annotations. However, the annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not provide significantly new behavioral context beyond that.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is extremely brief and lacks supporting details.

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 tool has nested body objects and no schema descriptions, the description is too minimal to enable correct invocation. It fails to explain what fields the body should contain or what the id refers to. The output schema exists, but that does not compensate for missing parameter context.

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 details about the 'id' or 'body' parameters. The description adds no meaning to the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct a valid request.

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 identifies the verb 'Update' and the resource 'remote path mappings', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for modifying existing remote path mappings, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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