sonarr_bulk_update_customformat

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

The description explicitly warns 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance,' which reinforces the mutation nature beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, partial failure modes, or permission requirements. Given readOnlyHint=false is already in the annotations, the added value is modest.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one sentence plus a warning. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the WRITE warning is helpful, albeit somewhat redundant with annotations. While concise, it is not well-structured to include essential parameter details, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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?

Though an output schema exists, the input side is severely under-specified. The tool has one parameter, but the description fails to clarify its structure, which is essential for a bulk update operation. An agent cannot construct a valid request without knowing whether body is a list, a partial update object, or something else. The description is insufficient for practical use.

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 description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the expected structure of 'body'. It does not—'Update customformat bulk' gives no hint whether body should be an array, an object with specific fields, or how to identify which custom formats to update. This is 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 clearly states the action ('Update') and the target resource ('customformat'), with 'bulk' distinguishing it from the singular sonarr_update_customformat. However, it doesn't elaborate on what a customformat is or the exact scope of the update, so it's slightly below a perfect score.

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 sonarr_update_customformat or sonarr_bulk_delete_customformat. The description lacks context on prerequisites, batch behavior, or whether it replaces existing formats, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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