sonarr_indexers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels write operations as 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' and deletes as 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data', which is important context. It does not cover all possible side effects or errors, but it addresses the most critical mutating behaviors.

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 appropriately structured as a bullet list of operations, each concisely described with its parameters and side effects. While it is long due to 11 operations, every line adds necessary information and the list format makes it scannable.

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 is complex with 11 sub-operations, and the description covers all of them, their parameters, and side effects. It also references an output schema, so return value details are not needed. Minor gaps include lack of details on argument dict structure and error handling, but the overall coverage is strong.

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 only operation and arguments with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists signatures for each operation (e.g., sonarr_delete_indexer(id)) and parameter names, which helps, but it does not explain what 'body' should contain or the structure of the arguments dict beyond suggesting it matches operation parameters. This is partial compensation.

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 performs 'sonarr indexers operations on Sonarr' and enumerates 11 specific operations with clear verbs (create, delete, list, update, etc.), which identifies the resource and action. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling Sonarr tools, though the focus on indexers makes it apparent.

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 implies usage by listing operations and instructing to pass an operation and arguments, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternative tools. There are no exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving usage to be inferred.

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