radarr_remove_import_list_exclusion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the post-removal effect (the movie can be imported again), but omits permissions required, whether the removal is reversible, and any side effects on related import lists. That is meaningful but incomplete behavioral context.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded and the consequence second. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter removal tool with high schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and outcome. The main gap is the absence of annotations, which leaves some behavioral details unstated, but overall it is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, and the parameter is documented as 'Import list exclusion ID (not movie ID)' directly in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: removing a movie from the import exclusion list. It distinguishes itself from the read-only sibling radarr_get_import_list_exclusions by naming the remove action and its consequence. The effect on future imports is also clear.

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 usage context by saying 'Allows the movie to be imported again,' which signals when an agent would want to call it. However, it does not name alternatives, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The schema note 'Import list exclusion ID (not movie ID)' helps but is not part of the description.

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