radarr_list_log_file_update

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'List' is consistent, so no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or any update semantics implied by the tool name. It relies entirely on the annotation and output schema.

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 (one sentence), but it is under-specified and relies on the awkward phrase 'file log files'. It is short but fails to be meaningfully informative.

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?

The description does not clarify what 'file log files' are, nor does it address the apparent mismatch with the tool name 'update'. With a sibling radarr_list_log_file existing, this description is insufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool over alternatives.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. There is nothing to document beyond the empty schema, and the description does not need to add more.

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 'List file log files' with a verb and resource, but 'file log files' is ambiguous and the tool name includes 'update' while the description only mentions listing. It does nothing to distinguish this tool from the sibling radarr_list_log_file.

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 provides no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a single sentence with no mention of intended use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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