sonarr_queue

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

With no annotations, the description flags destructive operations (DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data) and write operations (WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance), and clarifies effects like 'forces the download client to fetch it'. It does not cover prerequisites, permissions, or reversibility, but the most critical safety traits are disclosed.

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 long but well-structured as a bullet list, with each operation on its own line and a brief annotation. The redundant first sentence is the only waste; overall it is efficient for a multi-operation 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 high complexity (7 sub-operations) and minimal schema, the description provides sufficient operational detail for each operation, including distinguishing read, write, and destructive actions. It relies on the output schema for return values, which is acceptable.

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 compensates by listing complete signatures with defaults for every operation. It also clarifies ambiguous parameters (e.g., 'body is a list of ids'). However, some parameter meanings like change_category remain unexplained.

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 enumerates all seven queue operations with specific verbs (delete, get, list, grab) and their targets, distinguishing this from sibling Sonarr category tools. The operation list provides concrete purpose despite a redundant opening phrase.

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 instruction 'Pass operation and an arguments dict matching that operation's parameters' explains invocation but does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied by the operation names.

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