sonarr_update_qualityprofile

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

The description adds a WRITE warning and states that the operation modifies the Sonarr instance, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint=false annotation. However, it does not disclose any specific side effects, permission requirements, or fields affected. The added value beyond the annotation is minimal.

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 short sentences, highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no redundant information. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 that the tool accepts a nested body object with additionalProperties, the description should explain what fields to include or reference the schema, but it does not. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but request construction is left entirely unspecified. The description is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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 no descriptions, and the description does not mention the required id parameter or the body object. With 0% schema coverage, the tool provides no guidance on what should be passed in the body, leaving the agent to guess the expected structure. This is a critical gap.

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 tool updates quality profiles, naming the specific resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like quality definitions, though the name provides some disambiguation. Overall, the purpose is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 such as create, get, or delete quality profiles. It only implies usage through the verb 'update' and the WRITE warning. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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