sonarr_download_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does so explicitly, labeling all create/update operations as 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' and delete operations as 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data.' This effectively communicates the core behavioral traits, though it omits details like permission requirements or failure modes.

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 long bulleted list, but each entry is a compact function signature with a purpose and side-effect label, making it scannable. The intro is minimal. The repetitive side-effect phrasing is slightly wasteful but aids quick reading. Overall, it conveys a large amount of information efficiently.

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 provides a comprehensive list of operations and their side effects, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, the lack of parameter semantics is a major completeness gap for a complex dispatcher, and it does not mention authentication or operation-specific prerequisites. It is adequate for selecting an operation but not for full safe invocation.

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 by explaining parameters. It lists parameter names and defaults (e.g., force_save=False, body={}, id), but does not explain their meaning or how to structure the `arguments` dict. For a tool that requires operation-specific arguments, this is a significant gap that leaves callers guessing.

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 'sonarr download clients operations on Sonarr' and enumerates specific operations with function signatures, making the tool's purpose evident. However, it also includes remote path mapping operations under a 'download_clients' name, slightly muddying the scope and preventing a perfect score.

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 gives explicit usage instruction: 'Pass `operation` and an `arguments` dict matching that operation's parameters.' It also lists all operations with their parameters, providing a clear how-to. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the operation list itself makes the tool's coverage clear.

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