Sync a Profilarr database

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false is clarified as 'safe tier' that writes only to Profilarr's own store, never Radarr or Sonarr. It discloses the async behavior (queued job polled to a terminal status) and the non-obvious edge case that a no-op sync returns outcome=skipped rather than a normal sync — exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 action, then the safety tier, then the parameter rule, then async behavior, then the edge case — a sensible escalation. The closing 'Previews first; confirm to run it' partially restates the schema's confirm/dry_run descriptions, a small redundancy in an otherwise dense paragraph.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained, yet the description still flags the one return value an agent would misread (outcome=skipped). For a three-parameter mutation with an async job model, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by tying `database` to the multi-database precondition and by framing `confirm`/`dry_run` as a preview-then-apply handshake rather than two independent flags. Much of the per-parameter wording mirrors the schema, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 and resource — pulling one of Profilarr's databases (custom formats, quality profiles, delay profiles) from its configured git source — and names the concrete object set. No sibling tool does anything similar, and the description makes that obvious without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Explains the required workflow (preview, then pass back the confirm token) and the condition that makes `database` necessary (more than one database exists). It also scopes the blast radius versus Radarr/Sonarr, which implicitly tells the agent when this is the safe choice over tools that touch the media servers. No explicit named alternative or 'do not use when' statement, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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