seerr_update_request

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description repeats this with 'WRITE' and 'modifies your Seerr instance' without adding meaningful behavioral details such as permission requirements, side effects, or what fields can be changed. No contradiction, but little value beyond structured metadata.

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 short and front-loaded. The 'WRITE:' label is somewhat redundant with 'modifies', but the overall length is appropriate and there is no wasted verbiage.

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?

Despite an output schema and annotations, the description is too vague for a mutation tool with a nested body parameter. It doesn't explain what an update can change, how request_id is used, or how this tool differs from status/retry siblings, so the agent lacks sufficient context to invoke it 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no parameter information. request_id is self-explanatory by name, but the body is a free-form object with no field guidance, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid update payload.

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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'MediaRequest', clearly identifying this as a mutation of a media request. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like seerr_set_request_status or seerr_retry_request, leaving the exact scope of 'update' ambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as seerr_create_request, seerr_set_request_status, or seerr_retry_request. The phrase 'Update MediaRequest' implies a purpose, but there are no exclusions, preconditions, or comparative context.

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