Add a film, series, site or artist

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the two-phase preview/confirm contract, that search starts by default on add, that an option sent to the wrong service is refused rather than dropped, that Lidarr's add-search covers only monitored and released albums, and that monitor:"none" requires monitored:false. These are exactly the failure modes an agent would otherwise hit blind.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the alternative before the parameter detail, and nearly every sentence carries a distinct rule or caveat. The middle is dense and semi-colon chained, so it reads as a wall of detail rather than scannable structure, but there is little true filler.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with five enums, an output schema, and only weak annotations, the description supplies the preview/confirm lifecycle, per-service parameter legality, defaults, and a pointer to arr://docs/add_media for the full field reference. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds cross-cutting meaning the schema cannot express — the preview's refusal behavior for ambiguous root_folder/quality_profile, the per-service id provenance via lookup_media, and the service-specific notes on monitor/series_type/minimum_availability. It does not add much on the individual field formats, hence a 4 rather than a 5.

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 plus the exact resource per service ("Adds a film to Radarr, a series to Sonarr, a site to Whisparr or an artist to Lidarr") and immediately names the sibling it is not (request_media). An agent can distinguish it from request_media, update_media and set_monitoring without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit routing: use request_media for a Seerr request that goes through approval. It also gives operational guidance — name a quality profile/root folder when there is more than one because the preview refuses with the list, so "there is no need to check stack_health first", and "Previews first; confirm to add." That is when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and a named alternative.

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