seerr_set_media_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' is largely redundant. It adds no details about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or how the modification impacts other data. The description adds minimal value beyond the structured 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 sentence with no fluff, front-loading the main action ('Update media status') followed by a warning. It is appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys, though it could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what status values are valid, how the body parameter is used, or the tool's relationship to request/issue status. Despite having an output schema, key operational semantics are left to the agent's guesswork.

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%, but the description does not explain media_id, status, or the body object. The name and verb imply that status is the value to set and media_id identifies the media, but allowed values, formats, and the role of the body parameter remain undefined.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('media status'), clearly indicating the tool's function. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like seerr_set_request_status or seerr_set_issue_status, the resource 'media status' is sufficiently distinct.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'WRITE' warning is about side effects, not usage context. No mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.

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