sonarr_create_metadata_test

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

The description states 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance,' which adds a clear mutation warning. However, this is largely redundant with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false). No additional behavioral details are disclosed, such as side effects, what the test does, or whether it sends external requests.

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 short but under-specified. It contains a single sentence and a label, yet conveys minimal useful information. The brevity is not effective because it omits critical context about the tool's operation and parameters.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters including a nested body object, no output schema description is needed, but the overall context is missing. The description does not explain what a metadata test is, how to construct the body, or what the 'force_test' flag does. This is inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters ('body' and 'force_test'). The 'body' is an open object with additionalProperties=true, making it especially important to explain its contents. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of documentation.

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 provides a clear verb ('Create') and resource ('metadata test'), and explicitly flags it as a write operation. However, 'metadata test' is vague and does not distinguish from siblings like sonarr_create_metadata_testall or sonarr_create_metadata_action, so the exact purpose remains unclear.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., testall), nor does it mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent has no way to decide between this and related tools.

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