radarr_create_autotagging

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance,' which confirms the write nature. This provides some context beyond annotations but lacks details on side effects or idempotency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant wording. It is concise, though it sacrifices detail that would aid usability.

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?

Given the free-form body parameter and the existence of a schema endpoint, the description fails to reference how to obtain the expected structure. It is incomplete for a create operation with nested object input, though output schema exists which reduces the need to explain return values.

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?

The input schema has a single generic 'body' object with no property descriptions and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the body should contain, leaving the agent without guidance for constructing a valid request.

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 'Create auto tagging rules' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing this tool from sibling operations like update, delete, and list. The additional 'WRITE' context reinforces its purpose.

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 'Create' verb implies this is the tool for adding new auto tagging rules, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or whether to consult radarr_get_autotagging_schema beforehand. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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