radarr_set_movie_monitoring

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the action is reversible and has no immediate grab, indicating it is non-destructive. It also states that the function returns the movie state after the change. Missing details like required permissions or rate limits, but the provided context is valuable and accurate.

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 three sentences, each providing essential information. The first sentence states the main action, the second adds safety context, and the third describes the return value. No redundant or filler content is present.

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?

For a simple toggle tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, safety, and return value. It could mention how to obtain the movie_id (e.g., from radarr_list_movies) or that monitored=true enables monitoring, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI to use 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not define 'movie_id' or 'monitored' beyond their types. The agent must infer that 'movie_id' is an integer ID and 'monitored' is a boolean. No extra semantic meaning is added to aid parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states 'Enable or disable monitoring for a single movie', providing a clear verb-resource pair. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like radarr_add_movie or radarr_delete_movie by focusing on the monitoring toggle action.

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 notes that the action is reversible and requires no confirmation, implying safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like radarr_add_movie (which creates a new movie with monitoring) or radarr_delete_movie. No comparisons or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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