sonarr_update_metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the explicit 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' which reinforces that it is a write operation, but this is largely redundant with the annotations. It does not disclose side effects, whether the update is partial or full, or any prerequisites. Given the annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds minimal extra context.

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: two sentences totaling 11 words. It is front-loaded with the action and includes a clear write warning. Every word earns its place, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with annotations. Overall, it is well-structured and appropriately sized.

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, the description is insufficient given the tool's complexity. It has three parameters including a nested object, but no information about what 'id' refers to, what 'body' should contain, or what 'force_save' does. The description only provides a high-level operation, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly construct a request.

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 does not describe any parameters. The agent is left with three parameters (id, body, force_save) and no explanation of their meaning or how to structure a request. The 'body' parameter with additionalProperties true is especially problematic without guidance. This is a severe gap that prevents 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 metadata providers' using a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('metadata providers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_metadata', 'create_metadata', and 'get_metadata'. The resource is specific enough to avoid confusion with other update tools such as 'sonarr_update_importlist'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for updating existing metadata providers, nor does it refer to related tools like 'sonarr_create_metadata' or 'sonarr_list_metadata'. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Update metadata providers'.

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