sonarr_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It does disclose that update operations are writes ('WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance'), which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, return value behavior, potential side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions for other operations, leaving significant gaps.

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 well-structured bullet list with a clear opening instruction. It avoids unnecessary prose and each line is a discrete operation with its parameters. The format is efficient for a dispatcher tool, though it is long due to the number of operations.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described in detail. The description explains the invocation pattern (operation plus arguments) and lists all operations, which is adequate for a complex dispatcher. However, it lacks context about error handling, whether operations are grouped in any way, and how this relates to other Sonarr tools, making it only partially complete.

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 has no descriptions for parameters, and coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source. It lists operation-specific parameters (e.g., id, body, rename_episodes) and sometimes defaults, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the semantic purpose of each parameter or the structure of the 'arguments' dict beyond matching operation parameters, so it only partially compensates.

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 it is for 'sonarr config operations' and enumerates specific operations, making the general purpose clear. However, the tool name and description are somewhat tautological ('sonarr config operations on Sonarr'), and it does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools that may also handle similar config tasks like download clients or indexers.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The operation list implies usage based on the operation names, but there is no explicit statement about comparing with sibling tools or when not to use this dispatcher.

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