sonarr_bulk_update_series

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does state the core behavior (changing monitored status, quality profile, or tags via a single API call), but it doesn't disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or what happens to unlisted fields. The lack of these details leaves some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 concise, using just two sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose and key parameters, and the second sentence adds valuable usage guidance. There is no redundancy or 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, key fields, and distinguishes from siblings. However, it doesn't mention return behavior, error handling, or the applyTags detail (though that is in the schema). For a bulk update tool, this is fairly complete, but a bit more context about expected outcomes would push it to 5.

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?

All 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema, providing 100% coverage. The description adds the context that this is a bulk operation and mentions the key fields, but it doesn't go beyond the schema in explaining parameter syntax or relationships. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: bulk updating multiple Sonarr series, specifying the exact fields (monitored status, quality profile, tags). It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool sonarr_update_series, which is a single-series update.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by saying 'Use this instead of calling sonarr_update_series in a loop.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over an alternative, though it doesn't mention any cases where the single update might be preferred.

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