sonarr_update_qualitydefinition

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

The description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' essentially restates readOnlyHint=false from annotations, adding no additional context about side effects, required permissions, or reversibility. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal added value.

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 with two sentences, but the first is tautological with the tool name and the second merely repeats the annotation. It is concise but lacks useful structure or informative content.

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 mutation tool with an open-ended body and a similarly named sibling, the description is severely incomplete. It does not indicate what a quality definition is, what the body should contain, or how to choose between this and the plural sibling. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 explain the 'id' or 'body' parameters. The body is an open object with additionalProperties true, leaving the agent without guidance on required fields. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details.

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 states 'Update quality definitions,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate between this singular tool and the sibling sonarr_update_quality_definitions, and the singular/plural mismatch adds slight ambiguity. The 'WRITE' confirmation reinforces the mutation intent.

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 the sibling sonarr_update_quality_definitions or sonarr_get_qualitydefinition. The description merely repeats the action without context, prerequisites, or alternative tools.

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