seerr_override_rules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly labels create and update as 'WRITE: this modifies your Seerr instance' and delete as 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data,' while list is a read operation. This communicates side effects and safety clearly, though it does not mention return values or error behavior.

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 a concise bulleted list, with the opening line stating the tool's purpose. Each operation is described in one line with its behavioral flag. No redundant or filler content; every sentence adds value.

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 dispatcher tool with four operations and an open arguments dict, the description covers operation names and side effects but omits detailed parameter schemas for create and update. Since an output schema exists, return values are presumably covered, but the missing parameter guidance and lack of prerequisites or error handling leave the description incomplete for complex use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by naming operation-specific parameters (e.g., rule_id for delete and update) and instructing that arguments must match the operation. However, it does not enumerate parameters for create or list, leaving the arguments dict largely unspecified. It partially helps but leaves gaps.

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 handles 'seerr override rules operations on Seerr' and enumerates four specific operations (create, delete, list, update) with distinct verbs and the resource 'override rule'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other domains like users, media, or settings.

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 direct usage guidance: 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters.' It also lists the required argument for delete and update (rule_id), giving enough context to know how to invoke each operation. It does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives, but the operation list and resource focus make the use case clear.

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