radarr_edit_movie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint that a complete movie object from radarr_get_movie is required, but doesn't state permission requirements, whether the edit is reversible, or what the response looks like.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then field enumeration, then the operational instruction. Zero waste.

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 one required nested-object parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, mutable fields, and the crucial pre-fetch instruction. Minor gap: it could note the id requirement (covered by schema) or what happens to unlisted fields.

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%, and the schema already documents the single 'movie' parameter as requiring an 'id' field. The description's field list (monitored status, quality profile, path, tags, availability) adds marginal meaning over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 (edit) and resource (existing movie), and enumerates the mutable fields (monitored status, quality profile, path, tags, minimum availability). Clearly distinguished from siblings like radarr_add_movie and radarr_delete_movie.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the workflow: 'Get the full movie object first with radarr_get_movie, modify it, and pass it here.' Names the prerequisite tool and the required sequence, leaving no ambiguity about how or when to use it.

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