sonarr_update_import_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It notes the mutation nature via 'Update' and mentions enabling/disabling, but does not state whether other fields are overwritten, if permissions are required, or if the change is reversible. For a write operation, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words; it efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and primary 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 tool has three parameters, all covered by schema, and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple update operation. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, prerequisites (beyond listId being required), or return values, which would improve completeness for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (listId, enabled, enableAuto). The description adds minimal semantic value by stating the primary use case (enable/disable), which maps to the 'enabled' parameter, but does not go beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Update') and specific resource ('import list in Sonarr'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sonarr_get_import_lists. It also adds a primary use case ('primarily used to enable or disable it'), which further clarifies intent.

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 for when to use the tool (updating an import list, especially to enable/disable it). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the primary use case is stated, which is sufficient for this simple mutation tool.

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