sonarr_import_lists

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

The description manually marks write operations with 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' and destructive operations with 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data.' This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the schema. However, it does not cover other behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or side effects, and no annotations are provided to offset this.

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 where each line is concise and focused on a single operation. No empty phrases; every line provides operation-specific information. While long, the length is justified by the 18 operations it covers.

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 tool's complexity (18 distinct operations), the description covers all operations, notes query parameters for the paged operation, and the presence of an output schema helps clarify return values. It is sufficiently complete for a dispatcher-style tool, though it could add more context on parameter semantics and operation selection.

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 is generic (only `operation` and `arguments`), with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by listing per-operation parameter names and defaults (e.g., `force_save=False`, `page=1`, `sort_key=''`), but does not explain the types or meanings of these parameters. This adds moderate value but is not exhaustive.

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 enumerates each operation with a specific verb+resource (e.g., 'Create import lists', 'Delete import list exclusions', 'Fetch a single import lists by id'), making the purpose of each sub-operation clear. The tool's overall role as a dispatcher for Sonarr import list operations is evident from the list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor any explanation of how to select between the numerous operations beyond their names. The description does not provide context like 'use this for managing import lists' or alternative tool recommendations.

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