seerr_media_records

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly labels delete operations as 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' and the status update as 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance', providing critical risk awareness. It stops short of detailing other side effects like auth requirements or reversibility, but the provided flags are above average.

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 succinct and well-structured: a single opening instruction followed by a bulleted list of operation signatures. Every line delivers necessary information without redundancy or fluff, making it easy to scan.

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 covers all five operations and their parameters, but it lacks examples, return-value descriptions, and deeper explanations of parameter values. While an output schema presumably covers returns, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand nuances like filter syntax or body schema, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only defines 'operation' and 'arguments' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does list each operation's parameters with defaults (e.g., sort='added', take=None), which is helpful, but it omits semantics for ambiguous parameters like 'filter', 'status', and 'body', leaving gaps in understanding.

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 identifies this as a dispatcher for Seerr media record operations and enumerates five specific sub-operations with their signatures. It effectively communicates the tool's scope and differentiates it from siblings like seerr_search, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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 usage instructions (pass operation and arguments dict) and lists each operation's parameters, implying when to use each sub-operation. However, it does not offer explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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