sonarr_update_config_host

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

The description adds a WRITE warning ('this modifies your Sonarr instance') which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false) by clarifying the mutating effect. However, it does not disclose specific side effects such as restart requirements or revertibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the WRITE warning earns its place by alerting to side effects. It is efficiently structured, though it could be expanded without losing conciseness.

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's purpose (updating host configuration) and the ambiguous schema with no parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It omits return value behavior, request body semantics, prerequisites, and specific side effects, making it poorly contextualized for an agent.

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 'id' or 'body' parameters. This leaves the agent without essential information about what values to supply, a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('host config'), which is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools that update other config types. However, it is minimal and essentially restates the tool name's meaning without adding detail.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative config update tools (e.g., sonarr_update_config_indexer) or when to prefer the getter. The context is only implied by the resource name in the description.

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