radarr_add_movie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the add triggers a download/search, how duplicates are handled, permission requirements, or reversibility. "Add to your library" is the only behavioral claim, leaving most of the mutation profile undisclosed.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the required-parameter source; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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?

A 7-parameter mutation tool (including a nested addOptions object) with no annotations and no output schema is only adequately covered: the description never mentions tags, monitored, or the immediate-search option, nor what the caller gets back or how failures appear. The rich input schema compensates partially, but the description should do more for a write operation.

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 86%, so the schema already documents defaults for monitored, tags, addOptions.searchForMovie and the enum values. The description merely echoes the optional root folder, quality profile, and availability parameters without adding format or interaction detail, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a new movie to your library") and names the sibling tool (radarr_search_movies) that supplies the required tmdbId, so an agent can distinguish it from the search/get/delete siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite chain — obtain tmdbId from radarr_search_movies before calling — which is actionable context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use radarr_edit_movie for existing entries, or how to handle duplicates already in the library).

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