sonarr_restore_backup_upload

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a WRITE warning (redundant with annotations) and mentions 'limited support' and 'multipart upload', but doesn't disclose potential consequences like overwriting existing configuration.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical and a WRITE note. Every element earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

While the output schema exists and parameters are absent, the description is thin for a potentially impactful restore operation. It doesn't specify what happens to current data or how 'limited support' manifests, leaving some ambiguity.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about multipart upload, which is helpful even though no parameters are defined.

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 tool restores Sonarr from an uploaded backup file and explicitly notes it's a write operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'sonarr_restore_backup' by specifying 'uploaded backup file'.

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 clear context that this tool is for restoring from an uploaded file and notes limited support. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'sonarr_restore_backup' or state when not to use it.

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