sonarr_update_remotepathmapping

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

The description adds a 'WRITE' warning and states it modifies the Sonarr instance, which aligns with readOnlyHint:false and provides a bit more emphasis than the annotations alone. However, it does not disclose specific behavioral details like whether the update is partial or full replacement, or if any validation occurs.

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: one short sentence plus a clear WRITE warning. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the update operation with a nested body object and low schema coverage, the description is insufficiently informative. It lacks details about the body schema, update semantics, and required context, even though an output schema exists. More context is needed for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It does not explain 'id' (presumably the mapping ID) or 'body' (presumably update fields). The 'body' object is particularly under-specified since it allows additional properties with no guidance on valid keys or structure.

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') and the resource ('remote path mappings'), making it distinct from sibling tools. However, it lacks additional scope or context that would elevate it to a 5, such as what aspects of a remote path mapping can be updated.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like create_remotepathmapping or delete_remotepathmapping. The 'WRITE' warning hints at side effects but does not provide usage context or alternatives.

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