add_series

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses a lookup-first, two-phase flow and, crucially, that the tool returns candidates or available options rather than guessing when inputs are ambiguous or incomplete. Annotations already cover the safety profile (write, non-destructive), so this extra context is valuable. Gaps: no statement on idempotency (what happens if the series already exists) and the 'looks it up online' claim sits awkwardly against openWorldHint=false.

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-loaded with the core action, followed by the key behavioral caveats and two compact examples. No filler sentences; the examples earn their place by illustrating parameter usage. Slightly longer than strictly necessary but well organized.

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 need not be described. The description covers the main decision flow for a write tool. Remaining gap is handling of duplicates/already-existing series and any permission prerequisites, which an agent would want before calling it.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it clarifies that term is used for an online lookup and that quality_profile/root_folder may be absent, triggering an options response. The examples map natural-language phrases onto search_now and quality_profile, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Add a new series to Sonarr') that an agent can immediately distinguish from read-oriented siblings like get_series or search_library. The purpose is unambiguous and reinforced by two concrete invocation examples.

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 explains the operational flow (look up online first; return candidates on ambiguity; return available options if quality profile or root folder are missing), which tells the agent what to expect and how to follow up. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over any alternative, but no sibling competes for the 'add a series' job.

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