Grab a specific release

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description goes much further by disclosing the preview-then-confirm flow, that the confirm token is single-use and bound to the previewed arguments, that previewing is slow because it re-runs the search, and that a magnet bypasses any *arr vetting or import. It also flags that indexer-supplied release names are fenced and must not be treated as instructions, which matters for a tool that echoes external strings.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and the primary identifier path come first, followed by service-specific caveats, then safety and undo. Every sentence carries operational information, including the fencing warning and the slow-preview cost, with no 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 12-parameter, multi-service mutation tool with a preview/confirm cycle, the description covers the selection path, scope preservation, service-specific quirks, bypass risks, cost, and reversibility. An output schema and full parameter descriptions already exist, so nothing material is left for it to explain.

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 100% schema description coverage the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema does not convey alone: that `season`/`episode`/`album` must match what get_releases used so the preview stays in scope, that `magnet` is mutually exclusive with `guid`, and that `id` alone selects the most-downloaded release on Shelfmark. The schema already documents most individual fields thoroughly, so it stops short of 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Grabs one release listed by get_releases") and adds a memorable alias for the exact intent ("not that one, the 1080p remux"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling that lists releases. Supported services are enumerated, so an agent knows the scope immediately.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: pull `guid` and `indexer_id` verbatim from get_releases at detail "full", or use `release_title` exactly as listed, and says the call is refused when no row or multiple rows match. It names the magnet alternative and its consequence, and points to remove_queue_item as the undo path.

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