sonarr_update_config_mediamanagement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' reinforces but adds little new information. It doesn't disclose side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond the surface-level warning.

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 minimal and front-loaded: first sentence states the purpose, second sentence adds a clear write warning. No redundant information, every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description fails to provide essential invocation details. With two parameters (one required) and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the agent cannot correctly construct the call. The description only identifies the resource, not how to target it or what to send, so it is functionally incomplete.

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 0% description coverage and the description provides no explanation of the 'id' parameter or the structure/contents of 'body'. An agent has no way to know what values to supply or what the body should contain, making parameter usage entirely opaque.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the exact resource ('media management config'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling config update tools like sonarr_update_config_indexer or sonarr_update_config_naming.

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 usage for updating media management settings but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over other config update tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without contextual selection criteria.

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