set_monitored

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call can both monitor and unmonitor (a set-to-boolean operation, consistent with idempotency), but says nothing about required permissions, side effects on child items when monitoring a whole series/season, or refresh behavior.

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 scope sentence is front-loaded and dense, followed by three short examples that each demonstrate a distinct granularity. No filler or repetition; every line earns its place.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. With 6 parameters at 83% schema coverage plus combination semantics in the description, an agent has enough to call correctly, though the movie-vs-series duality (Radarr/Sonarr) is only implied through parameter names.

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 83% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value by explaining how parameters combine: episode IDs alone, or series+season+episode numbers 'in one call'. This combination logic goes beyond the per-parameter schema notes and helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 states a specific verb pair (monitor/unmonitor) and enumerates every supported resource granularity: episode by ID, series+season+episode, whole season, whole series, and movie. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like search_episodes or add_series without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is grounded with three concrete example utterances that map natural-language phrasing to parameter combinations, making the intended invocation pattern clear. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or names an alternative sibling (e.g., bulk_edit_apply) for batch scenarios.

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