stremio_configure_addon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the two-call round-trip protocol, that the first call reports page fields, and that it opens a browser configuration page (a real side effect requiring user interaction). It omits auth/permission requirements, but the interaction model is unusually well conveyed.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then walks the two steps in order with no filler. Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct instruction.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the two-phase flow is fully explained. The remaining gap is the two undocumented parameters, which an agent would need to guess at, but the core protocol is complete.

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 coverage is 0% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains 'addon' (id, name, or transport URL) and 'configured_manifest_url', but leaves 'position' and 'open_configuration_page' entirely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run a configurable addon's browser setup and install its result') and scopes it to configurable addons, implicitly distinguishing it from stremio_install_addon. It's clear what the tool accomplishes, though it never names the sibling it is not.

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?

Gives an explicit two-phase usage protocol: first call with addon id/name/transport URL, then a second call with the configured manifest URL produced. This is strong when-to-use guidance, but it does not contrast against alternatives like stremio_install_addon or stremio_sync_addon for non-configurable cases.

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