sonarr_update_quality_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: it fetches the existing profile first to avoid overwriting unrelated fields, which is crucial for a mutating tool. It does not mention error handling, permissions, or rollback, but the fetch-first behavior is well articulated.

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 deliver the purpose and the critical safety behavior with no redundancy. The description is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

For a 6-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the modifiable fields, and the fetch-first safeguard, which addresses the main risk. It does not mention return values or error scenarios, but these are less critical for an update tool given the rich schema and the operational detail provided.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping the parameters into meaningful change categories (e.g., 'cutoff quality' maps to the cutoff param) and by noting that the tool fetches the existing profile first, implying that not all fields need to be supplied. This goes slightly beyond the schema's individual field descriptions.

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 the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'Sonarr quality profile' and enumerates the changeable fields (upgradeAllowed, minFormatScore, cutoffFormatScore, cutoff quality, custom format scores), clearly distinguishing it from read-only siblings like sonarr_get_quality_profile and other update tools like sonarr_update_quality_definition.

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 implies when to use the tool (modifying existing quality profiles) and explains the fetch-first behavior to prevent overwriting unrelated fields. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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