sonarr_create_downloadclient

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

The description adds a WRITE warning and states that it modifies the Sonarr instance, which is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false). This provides a clear side-effect indication beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not detail permissions, reversibility, or potential impacts on existing configurations, so the added transparency is minimal but sufficient for a simple create operation.

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 consists of two short, direct sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and side-effect. There is no wasted language, and the WRITE prefix is a clear, scannable signal. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 create operation with an unconstrained body parameter, the description lacks essential context about the expected payload. While an output schema exists, the input side is under-specified. The description does not mention the availability of list_downloadclient_schema or any other way to discover valid fields, making it incomplete for real-world 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description offers no parameter explanations. The body object is open-ended (additionalProperties: true) with no guidance on required fields or structure, leaving an agent without any semantic understanding of how to construct a valid request. The description does nothing to compensate for this 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 'Create download clients' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_downloadclient_test or create_downloadclient_action. The tool name itself reinforces the purpose, leaving no ambiguity about what operation it performs.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_downloadclient_schema can be used to discover the body structure, nor does it explain when to use create_downloadclient_test instead of this tool. The only hint is the generic 'Create download clients', which offers no context for decision-making.

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