sonarr_system_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly flags destructive operations with 'DESTRUCTIVE: this deletes data' and write operations with 'WRITE: this modifies your Sonarr instance.' It also notes 'limited support' for multipart upload and states that ping verifies reachability and authentication.

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 an overview and usage instruction, followed by a well-structured bullet list of all operations. Each line is concise and informative, covering 20 operations without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place by adding needed operation semantics or safety warnings.

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?

Despite having 20 operations, the description is comprehensive. It covers all operation types, provides safety annotations, explains the arguments dict, and gives specific parameter details for complex operations. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke operations correctly.

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 provides only an operation enum and a generic arguments object with no descriptions. The description compensates by explaining each operation's purpose and providing parameter hints, e.g., 'sonarr_list_log(page=1, page_size=10, sort_key='', sort_direction='', level='')' lists query params, and run_command specifies that body is a CommandResource with a `name`. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 handling 'sonarr system commands operations on Sonarr' and then enumerates 20 specific operations. Each operation has a verb and resource (e.g., 'sonarr_get_health() — List health'), distinguishing this dispatcher tool from sibling tools like sonarr_config or sonarr_history_blocklist.

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 provides a clear usage pattern: 'Pass `operation` and an `arguments` dict matching that operation's parameters.' It also gives operation-specific details (e.g., query params for list_log, body example for run_command). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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