sonarr_update_config_naming

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

The description clearly discloses that this is a write operation modifying the Sonarr instance, adding context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects, permissions, or whether changes are reversible, so the extra value is limited.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with each sentence serving a purpose (stating the action and warning about the write effect). It is not wordy, but it achieves conciseness by omitting essential detail, which slightly reduces the structural quality.

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 tool that updates configuration via a free-form body object, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks any explanation of what naming configuration entails, how to retrieve current settings, expected payload structure, or validation rules, making it insufficient for correct use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the 'id' and 'body' parameters, but it provides none. The 'body' is an open object with additionalProperties, yet there is no hint about what keys to use or how to structure the naming configuration, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 phrase 'Update naming' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, but it does convey the action and resource. However, it fails to specify what 'naming' refers to (e.g., naming configuration, file naming patterns) and does not distinguish this tool from related get/list naming 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sonarr_get_config_naming or sonarr_list_config_naming_examples. The 'WRITE' label implies modification, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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