sonarr_season_pass

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states it 'sets' monitored status, but does not explain whether changes are reversible, what happens to episodes already downloaded, or whether the operation is destructive in any way. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the key action and scope efficiently.

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 two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not clarify the seriesId mismatch, define expected return values, or provide examples. It is adequate for a simple tool but falls short given the claim of supporting multiple series and the lack of annotation support.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description claims 'one or more series' while the schema defines seriesId as a single number, not an array. This introduces ambiguity and undermines trust in parameter semantics. The schema itself provides adequate descriptions, but the description adds misleading information.

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 ('Bulk set monitored status'), the target ('entire seasons'), and the scope ('across one or more series'), distinguishing it from per-episode monitoring tools like sonarr_monitor_episodes. It is specific and immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with similar tools such as sonarr_monitor_episodes or sonarr_update_series. The usage context is only implied by the purpose.

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