sonarr_process_manual_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('import') but does not state side effects (e.g., permanent file moves), permission requirements, failure behavior when invalid items are passed, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains zero redundant words. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 the tool is a single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what to pass and optionally how to filter. It does not explain what the return value is or what happens on failure, but for a tool with such straightforward inputs, this is a minor gap.

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 already documents the 'items' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds practical guidance on the source of the items (from sonarr_get_manual_import) and suggests optionally filtering out items with rejections, which goes beyond the schema's description and adds meaningful usage semantics.

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 action ('Confirm and import files') and specifically references the companion tool 'sonarr_get_manual_import', distinguishing it from other operations. It is specific, uses a verb+resource structure, and is unambiguous.

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 instructs to pass the items array from the preview response and optionally filter to importable items with no rejections, providing clear workflow context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or what alternatives exist, but the reference to the preview tool implies the proper sequence.

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