grab_release

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

Annotations only say this is not read-only, not destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real behavioral context the annotations can't: the ~30-minute staleness window and the fact that it can override a prior rejection. Failure handling ('search again if it fails') is also disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the action and the constraint, and the trailing user-phrase examples aid intent matching without padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining agent-critical facts — where the identifiers come from and how long the grab stays valid — are all stated.

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 100%, so guid, service, and indexer_id are already documented in the schema, including the Sonarr/Radarr distinction and the Prowlarr caveat. The description only repeats the explain_search provenance already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 (send/grab) and resource (release), plus the key behavioral nuance that it works 'even if it was rejected'. It explicitly anchors itself to the sibling tool explain_search as the source of the release, so an agent can distinguish it from search_* and preview_* siblings.

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 a concrete operational constraint ('only works within ~30 minutes of the search; search again if it fails') and implies the precondition that a prior explain_search must have run. It doesn't state an explicit when-not case beyond that, but the routing to explain_search is clear.

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