radarr_add_movie

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

The description says 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance', which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=false but adds little beyond what annotations already reveal. It does not disclose specific side effects, prerequisites, potential failures, or what happens to existing data. The annotations already establish the safety profile (write, non-destructive), so this description offers minimal additional behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and immediately follow with a clear write warning. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The body parameter is completely undocumented—no mention of required properties like tmdbId, qualityProfileId, or rootFolder. The tool could be considered usable if the agent already knows Radarr's MovieResource structure, but the description alone does not provide enough to construct a valid request, making it a clear gap.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the 'body' parameter. It only says 'body is a MovieResource', which gives a type hint but not the required fields, structure, or constraints of a MovieResource. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid request, as the schema itself is opaque (additionalProperties true, no property descriptions).

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 states the action: 'Add a movie to Radarr', with a specific resource ('movie') and verb ('add'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by its explicit focus on adding movies, while other tools handle different resources like download clients or indexers. The parenthetical 'body is a MovieResource' further clarifies the nature of the operation.

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 implies the tool is for adding movies to the Radarr instance, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., radarr_import_movie or radarr_update_movie). There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so usage context is only implied by the tool name and basic action.

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