sonarr_update_custom_format

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it fetches the current format first then applies changes, and only fields provided are changed. This is valuable beyond what the schema shows. It does not mention permissions or failure modes, but the core merge behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. Every word adds value, making it an example of efficient writing.

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 schema's detailed per-parameter descriptions, the description fully captures the essential update behavior. The only nuance—that specifications array is a full replacement—is documented in the schema, so the description is complete enough for effective use.

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 describes all parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds important semantics about optional fields: 'Only provide fields you want to change' clarifies that omitted fields retain existing values. This goes beyond schema-level optional flags and explains the update strategy.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update an existing custom format' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create/delete/get. Also clarifies the fetch-and-merge behavior, which adds purpose specificity.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Only provide fields you want to change.' This implies partial update semantics and tells the user how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use create instead), but sibling context makes that somewhat implicit.

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