sonarr_notifications_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels mutating operations as 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' and destructive ones as 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data', which is valuable. Read operations are left unlabeled, implying safety, though test operation semantics are not explained.

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 front-loaded with a brief usage hook, then follows a consistent bulleted list of all operations. Each line contains necessary operation-specific information with no redundancy, making it appropriately sized for a dispatcher tool.

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 dispatcher complexity, output schema presence, and lack of annotations, the description is largely complete: it enumerates all operations, their parameters, and safety status. It could note that `arguments` keys should exactly match parameter names, but this is inferable from the listed signatures.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by listing each operation's parameter signature (e.g., force_save, body, id). This adds meaning beyond the generic `arguments` object, but it does not detail the structure of `body` or types of parameters.

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 the tool covers 'sonarr notifications metadata operations' and lists 18 specific operations with explicit verbs (create, delete, get, list, update) and resource targets (metadata, notification). This distinguishes it from sibling tools handling other Sonarr domains.

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?

It provides clear instructions to pass an `operation` and an `arguments` dict matching that operation's parameters, which tells the agent exactly how to invoke it. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the operation list and domain scope make the usage context evident.

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