sonarr_monitor_episodes

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 states the core action but does not disclose any side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond what the schema provides. For a write operation, it lacks details about how it affects existing monitoring, failure modes, or permission requirements, but it is honest about the primary behavior.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, conveying the essential action without fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the what and the scope, though it could mention differentiating from season-level monitoring (sonarr_season_pass) or note the destructive nature of overwriting existing status. Still, it is complete enough for an agent to understand the core function.

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 two parameters (monitored and episodeIds) are fully documented. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, simply reinforcing that the operation is bulk. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action: 'Bulk set monitored/unmonitored status for specific episodes.' It identifies the verb (set), the resource (monitored/unmonitored status), and the scope (specific episodes), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_episodes or sonarr_season_pass.

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 clear context that this tool is for bulk updating episode monitoring status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the schema's episodeIds description referencing sonarr_get_episodes gives a hint about where to obtain IDs. The simplicity of the tool makes the usage obvious, so it earns a 4 rather than 3.

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