radarr_update_autotagging

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, so the description's 'WRITE: this modifies your Radarr instance' is largely redundant with the structured data. It adds no new behavioral context such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, error behavior, or any side effects beyond the obvious write operation.

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 very short, front-loaded with the action ('Update auto tagging rules'), and has no unnecessary wordiness. The second sentence about WRITE is somewhat redundant with annotations but does not hurt. It is appropriately concise, though it could be more informative within the same length.

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 tool's complexity (free-form body, nested objects, and a bare input schema), the description is under-specified. It does not explain how to construct a valid request, the semantics of the body, or any operational requirements. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the complete lack of context about the parameters and behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no meaning for the 'id' or 'body' parameters. It says 'Update auto tagging rules' but never explains that 'id' targets a specific rule or what 'body' should contain (e.g., fields to update), leaving the agent entirely without parameter-level guidance.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and names the resource 'auto tagging rules', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, list, get, and delete. The additional 'WRITE' clarification reinforces that this is a mutation, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 usage for updating existing auto-tagging rules, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ID), or contrast with alternative tools like create_autotagging. The 'WRITE' warning is more of a behavioral note than usage guidance.

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