sonarr_create_remotepathmapping

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'modifies your Sonarr instance' is consistent but adds little beyond saying it's a write operation. No details about side effects, auth, or error handling. No contradiction.

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?

Two clear sentences, no fluff. The first states purpose, the second is a useful warning. However, given the complexity, more detail on parameters would be needed, but within its length it's well-structured.

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 a free-form body, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify required fields or the shape of the request. The existence of an output schema doesn't mitigate the missing input guidance. Overall, it's a minimal description.

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 generic 'body' object with no defined properties. The description does not explain what fields should be included for a remote path mapping (e.g., host, localPath, remotePath). With 0% schema description coverage, this is a significant 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 remote path mappings.' This is a specific verb+resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list, delete, get, and update. The addition of 'WRITE' clarifies the operation type.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update/delete). It doesn't mention prerequisites or contexts, just a bare statement. The 'WRITE' warning is a caution but not usage guidance.

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