seerr_update_settings_sonarr

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description's 'this modifies your Seerr instance' adds minimal extra context and does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or impact on existing configurations. It mostly restates what the tool does.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. The 'WRITE' warning is brief. However, the second clause is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but it does not feel bloated. It is appropriately sized but could be more informative.

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 updates an existing Sonarr configuration with an arbitrary user-supplied body, the description is inadequate. It does not specify what the body should contain, how sonarr_id is used, whether Sonarr settings are replaced or merged, or any operational consequences. The presence of an output schema partially covers return values, but the description leaves critical gaps.

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 zero description coverage (0%). The description does not explain the 'sonarr_id' (presumably the ID of the Sonarr instance) or the 'body' object (which has additionalProperties: true). Without any parameter hints, an agent has no idea what fields to include or what IDs are valid.

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 states the action 'Update Sonarr instance' with a specific verb and resource. The 'WRITE' flag reinforces that this is a mutation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from create/delete siblings beyond the verb, and the name already conveys the update semantics.

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 like seerr_create_settings_sonarr or seerr_delete_settings_sonarr. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the Sonarr instance already existing, or scenarios where update is preferred over recreate.

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