sonarr_add_series

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses no side effects: whether a duplicate check occurs, whether adding triggers an automatic episode search, or what permissions/rate constraints apply. 'Add' implies mutation but nothing about consequences is stated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the prerequisite, then the optional inputs. No padding, though the optional-fields sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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?

Covers the required input and the source for its value, which is the key thing an agent needs to call it. For an 8-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of any duplicate-handling or side-effect guidance leaves a real gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, including defaults. The description loosely echoes root folder, quality profile, and season monitoring but adds no format or semantics beyond the schema – baseline 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 ('Add') and resource ('a new TV series to your library'), which cleanly separates it from the edit/delete/refresh siblings. It does not explicitly name a tool it is not, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 precondition – the tvdbId must come from sonarr_search_series, which routes the agent to the right sibling for acquisition. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g. when to use edit_series instead), so no 5.

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