sonarr_history_blocklist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by flagging destructive operations with 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data.' and write operations with 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance.' It also adds nuance like 'blocklists the release by default' for the mark-failed operation. However, it could disclose more details (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), so it is not a perfect 5.

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 efficiently structured with a brief general instruction followed by a bullet list of operations. Each bullet is a single concise line containing the operation name, parameters, and safety label. No word is wasted, and the format makes scanning and selecting operations easy.

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 complexity of 7 sub-operations and no annotations, the description is quite thorough: it covers all operations, their signatures, and flags destructive/write behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. However, it doesn't mention potential exceptions, authentication requirements, or how the arguments dict should be structured beyond listing parameters, leaving minor gaps.

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 only provides operation and arguments as a free-form object, but the description compensates by listing each operation's parameter signature with defaults (e.g., `page=1, page_size=10`). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It could go further by explaining each parameter's semantics, but the coverage is strong for a dispatcher-style tool.

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 explicitly states it handles 'sonarr history blocklist operations' and enumerates seven specific operations with clear verbs (delete, list, mark). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other Sonarr aspects like profiles, config, or media library. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with sibling tools. Usage is implied by the tool name and the listed operations, but the description does not state when to choose this over other Sonarr tools or any exclusions. The per-operation notes give some context, but global usage guidance is absent.

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