seerr_create_request

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'modifies your Seerr instance,' which provides slightly more specific context about the write behavior. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission needs, or post-creation consequences, offering only marginal value beyond the 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 a single, compact sentence that directly states the action and its write nature. It uses a colon to break up the statement logically. While it lacks depth, it is efficiently worded and contains no superfluous content, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 is a create operation that likely requires a structured body (e.g., media type, TMDB ID, etc.), and while an output schema exists, there is no information about the required input format. The description is far too minimal for the agent to successfully invoke this tool without external knowledge, making it incomplete for its complexity.

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 schema has a single 'body' object with no description and additionalProperties true, meaning any JSON is accepted. The tool description does not mention the 'body' parameter or hint at its required structure (e.g., mediaType, tmdbId). With 0% schema description coverage and no compensatory explanation, the agent is left completely uninformed about how to construct the request, making this a critical gap.

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 'Create new request' with a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It also highlights 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance,' which distinguishes it from read-only tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like seerr_update_request or seerr_set_request_status, relying on the verb 'create' to imply the distinction.

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, no prerequisites, and no context on what constitutes a valid request. It merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings, without any supporting details.

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