request_media

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and idempotent=false; the description adds real context beyond them by noting the approval workflow is preserved and that Seerr write permission is required. It still omits duplicate-request behavior and what the call returns.

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?

Three tight fragments, front-loaded with the action, then parameters, then prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers the action, key parameters, and the write prerequisite, but with no output schema the description should say what a successful request returns (e.g., a request ID) and it leaves is_4k undocumented, so it is only partially complete for a 4-param mutation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the burden: it documents media_id as a TMDB ID, media_type as movie or TV, and seasons defaulting to [1]. It omits is_4k entirely and does not pin down accepted media_type strings or the seasons semantics for movies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Create a Seerr request') and clarifies the domain (Seerr media requests) which separates it from read-only siblings like get_request and search_media. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it lands just short of the top mark.

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?

Usage is implied (request media when you want Seerr to procure it) and it states the prerequisite 'Requires Seerr writes', but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no guidance on choosing among siblings such as get_request or search_media.

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