sonarr_storage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It marks create_rootfolder as 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance' and delete_rootfolder as 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data', which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, reversibility, side effects on disk, or error behavior, so transparency is only partial.

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 well-structured as a bulleted list of operations with signatures and brief warnings. It front-loads the invocation instruction. Minor redundancy exists ('sonarr storage operations on Sonarr'), but overall each line earns its place and there is no substantive fluff.

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 eight operations, yet the description provides only one-line comments for each and lacks contextual details such as when to use specific operations, typical use cases, prerequisites, or failure modes. An output schema exists, which may cover return values, but the description does not round out the behavioral context adequately for reliable agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and defaults (e.g., path='', include_files=False) and indicates that arguments should match operation parameters, but it fails to explain the meaning or valid values of key parameters. For example, sonarr_create_rootfolder(body={}) does not describe what fields 'body' should contain, leaving the agent without enough information to construct correct arguments.

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 identifies the tool as 'sonarr storage operations' and enumerates specific verbs and resources (create_rootfolder, delete_rootfolder, list_filesystem, etc.), making each operation's purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools, relying on the tool name and operation list for context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The only usage instruction is syntactic ('Pass operation and an arguments dict'), which does not help the agent decide when to call this tool instead of siblings like sonarr_media_library.

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