sonarr_mark_history_item_failed

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

The description explicitly labels this as a WRITE operation and discloses the side effect of blocklisting by default, going beyond the annotations. It provides useful behavioral context without contradicting the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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 concise sentences with the main action first and a warning second. No unnecessary words, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple tool with one parameter, annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and key side effect. It could add where to get the id or the permanent nature of the blocklist, but it is largely complete.

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 only defines an integer 'id' with no description. The description identifies 'a history item' as the target, giving partial meaning, but it does not explicitly state that 'id' is the unique history record identifier or where to find it.

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: 'Mark a history item as failed' and adds the key side effect 'blocklists the release by default'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling history-list 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?

The description implies the use case (marking a history item failed) but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention how to obtain the history item id or when not to use this tool.

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