sonarr_commit_manual_import

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

The description states 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' which essentially repeats the annotation readOnlyHint=false. It does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as side effects on existing data, idempotency, potential errors, or whether the manual import items are consumed or removed. No new context is added beyond the 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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the key note about the body's type and the WRITE nature. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition of schema details.

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?

The description does not provide necessary workflow context, such as the relationship to 'sonarr_list_manualimport', expected input structure, or any post-commit behavior. While an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the tool's core semantics remain under-specified, making the description insufficient for correct usage.

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 one parameter 'body' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds only that it is 'a list of manual import items', which is a high-level expectation but lacks structural detail about each item's required properties, format, or meaning. This is insufficient for the agent to correctly construct the body without external knowledge.

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: 'Commit a manual import' with the body being a list of manual import items. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'sonarr_list_manualimport' which lists imports. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide contrast with sibling tools.

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, such as when a manual import should be committed after reviewing results from 'sonarr_list_manualimport'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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