mylar_providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides operation semantics (add/change/delete/list), notes the constraint that torznab requires categories, and specifies that delete requires either name or prov_id. However, it does not discuss side effects like persistence, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior, which are important for a tool that mutates provider configuration.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line overview followed by four operation signatures with descriptive notes. Each line adds specific value, with no filler or redundant repetition. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand the tool's capabilities 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?

For a dispatcher tool with four operations, the description covers all operation parameters and even highlights the return structure for list_providers. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values further. However, additional context about side effects (e.g., whether changes persist to Mylar3's config) would improve operational completeness.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the primary source of parameter meaning. It enumerates each operation's parameters, defaults, and required fields, and explains the operation vs. arguments pattern. It does not explicitly type every parameter (e.g., 'enabled' as boolean) or describe the arguments dict structure beyond the signatures, but it compensates well overall.

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 defines the tool's role as managing Mylar3 providers, explicitly listing all four supported operations (add, change, delete, list) with detailed function signatures. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target comics, issues, lists, or system functions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 operation list effectively tells the agent when to use the tool (whenever provider management is needed), and each signature clarifies the exact scope of each operation. However, there is no explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison with alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the sibling names.

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