Search for a subtitle

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the search is queued and returns immediately, success is not guaranteed, and search_anyway may overwrite an existing subtitle. That replacement warning is the most important disclosure here and sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false, which is worth flagging to the agent but is a scoped, opt-in flag rather than a contradiction of the tool's overall profile.

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 and the motivating scenario, then conditions, then the confirm mechanics. Dense and largely waste-free, though the parenthetical about series_id and the em-dash asides make it busier than necessary.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with thin annotations, the description covers timing, failure modes, the dry_run/confirm contract, and how to source its arguments from a sibling tool. With an output schema present it rightly spends no words on return values.

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 91%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description still adds real value by tying kind/id/language to what get_subtitles reports and by explaining why series_id is only needed with search_anyway for unlisted episodes — a rationale the schema states only in compressed form.

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+resource+scope: "Asks Bazarr to go looking for one language of subtitles for one item it already tracks." It is clearly distinguished from the sibling get_subtitles (which reports) and from the generic trigger_search, and the quoted user situation pins the intent further.

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 when-to-use ("it is missing Dutch subs and I do not want to wait for the next round"), explicit default behavior (only searches items Bazarr lists as missing) versus search_anyway, plus the special case requiring series_id. It also states the preview-then-confirm sequence an agent must follow.

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