sonarr_delete_episode_files_bulk

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 the scope of deletion (all files for a series or season) and that seriesId is 'resolved automatically,' which is useful. However, it fails to mention that deletion is likely irreversible, any permission requirements, or what happens if conflicting parameters (fileIds and seriesId) are passed. For a destructive bulk operation, this is a notable gap that keeps it from being fully transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core action, and the second explains the two invocation modes. Every word earns its place with no filler. It is easy to scan and directly informs usage.

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 description is mostly complete for invocation: it covers the purpose, both parameter modes, and the alternative to the singular delete tool. However, it omits edge-case behaviors (e.g., conflict resolution if both fileIds and seriesId are provided, or whether seasonNumber can be used without seriesId) and provides no information about return values or errors. Given no output schema, a bit more detail would be ideal, but the core context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the schema's parameter meanings (explicit fileIds, seriesId/seasonNumber combination) without adding significant new semantics. It does clarify the 'instead of loop' reasoning, but that is more about usage than parameter semantics. Thus, it does not elevate above baseline.

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: 'Delete multiple episode files at once.' It goes beyond a generic verb by specifying the resource (episode files) and the bulk nature. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'sonarr_delete_episode_file' by explicitly recommending this tool instead of looping, which resolves ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use instead of calling sonarr_delete_episode_file in a loop.' It also outlines two distinct usage modes (explicit fileIds vs. seriesId/seasonNumber), making it clear when each is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, but the alternative is clearly named.

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