seerr_create_settings_sonarr_test

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

The description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance,' which is a behavior beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it doesn't disclose what exactly gets modified, whether it's persistent or reversible, or what side effects a test operation might have. With annotations already indicating non-read-only, the added value is minimal.

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 one short sentence and front-loaded with the key phrase 'Test Sonarr configuration WRITE.' However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently concise—it omits essential details and doesn't earn its placeholder fully.

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?

For a tool that tests a configuration and modifies the instance, the description is drastically incomplete. It doesn't mention the request/response format, what success/failure looks like, or how it relates to the many sibling settings tools. Even with an output schema available, the lack of behavioral context makes this tool hard 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?

The input schema has a single 'body' object with additionalProperties true and no property descriptions. The description provides zero parameter information—no hints about what the body should contain (e.g., Sonarr URL, API key, quality profiles). With schema description coverage at 0%, the description completely fails to compensate.

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 a specific action ('Test Sonarr configuration') and resource, plus a WRITE indicator, but it's vague about what 'test' means—whether it validates connection or actually saves the config. It distinguishes itself as a test variant from sibling seerr_create_settings_sonarr only by implication, not explicit contrast.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like seerr_create_settings_sonarr or seerr_update_settings_sonarr. The single sentence gives no context about prerequisites, expected flow, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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