sonarr_update_quality_definition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It includes a valuable warning that misconfigured sizes can block all imports, which is an important side effect. However, it does not mention whether changes are permanent, require permissions, or what the response indicates, leaving some gaps.

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: the first states the action clearly, the second provides a critical warning. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 is a mutation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to cover risks and outcomes. It does warn about a major risk, but it omits other important context like reversibility, persistence, or how to obtain the definitionId (though the schema references sonarr_review_setup). Overall, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 describes all parameters with units and optionality (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that these are size limits but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, except implicitly linking them to the warning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and names the exact resource ('min/max/preferred size limits for a quality tier'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tool sonarr_update_quality_profile by focusing on quality definitions (size limits) rather than quality profiles.

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 intended use is implied by the description ('Update the min/max/preferred size limits'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The warning about verifying values implies a cautious approach but does not give concrete usage context.

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