add_series

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this type of addition uses the standard series endpoint, bypasses anime resolution, and applies global quality defaults when omitted—providing operational context beyond simply saying 'add' by ID. It could go further by describing side effects or success behavior, but it still gives a better-than-simple behavioral view.

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 dense but purposeful: purpose, fallback context, workflow, and the necessary quality-values list. Every sentence earns its place, and the quality enumeration is genuinely needed since the schema lacks enum definitions. It could be marginally streamlined, but nothing is padding or tautology.

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?

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is not complete enough by itself. It provides strong high-level type context and workflow, but it omits the meaning of essential parameters such as anime defaults, scene flags, paused/status semantics, language usage, and root/show directory fields. An agent might infer some of this from names, but for a complicated mutation operation it should not be relied on.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does help by enumerating all valid quality values and stating the default handling when qualities are omitted. However, most other parameters—such as root_dir, show_dir, scene, paused, status, language, and the anime boolean—are left unexplained or only inferable from their names. That is a significant gap for a 10-parameter tool.

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 the exact action, resource, and target: 'Add a series to Medusa directly by TVDB ID via POST /api/v2/series.'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling add_anime by explicitly presenting this as fallback for TVDB-mapping failures. The verb is specific and the resource is clear, so an agent can confidently select intent.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool instead of add_anime: 'Use this as a fallback when add_anime fails due to AniDB-to-TVDB mapping issues.' It gives a next-step workflow: 'First find the correct TVDB ID with search_tvdb, then add it here.' It even explains why it applies in that case: 'This bypasses anime resolution entirely.' This leaves no ambiguity about the intended route.

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