radarr_run_command

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

The description explicitly warns 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance,' adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not detail potential side effects or whether commands execute asynchronously. Annotations already mark readOnlyHint false, so this note is a modest addition.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler; the first covers purpose and examples, the second covers safety/behavior. Efficient and well-structured.

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 generic command runner with an output schema present, the description covers the key inputs and the write nature. It would benefit from directing users to radarr_list_command for valid command names, but it's otherwise sufficient.

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 schema provides only an empty object body with no property descriptions; the description compensates by specifying that body is a CommandResource with a `name` property and giving examples. This gives essential semantics, though it doesn't enumerate other CommandResource fields.

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 tool runs a Radarr command, with concrete examples (RefreshMovie, MoviesSearch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like radarr_list_command or radarr_get_command, which inspect commands rather than execute them.

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?

It gives examples of commands and labels the operation as WRITE, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention the list_command for discovering valid command names. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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