radarr_rescan_movie

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the scan detects (new, modified, deleted files), which implies the library is updated as a side effect, but says nothing about whether the operation is synchronous, whether it can modify files, or what the response contains.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the detection scope. No filler, though the second sentence could be folded in without loss.

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 tool this is mostly adequate, but the absence of any distinction from radarr_refresh_movie leaves a real gap in correct tool selection, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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 there is a single required parameter (movieId) already documented as "Radarr movie ID to rescan." The description adds no further parameter semantics, 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?

"Rescan movie folder for files" states a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence clarifies exactly what the rescan detects (new, modified, deleted files). However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling radarr_refresh_movie, which an agent could easily confuse with a rescan.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Most critically, it never explains when to rescan a folder versus calling radarr_refresh_movie, leaving the agent to guess between two similarly named siblings.

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