sonarr_edit_series

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The instruction to fetch the full object first and pass it back implies full-object replacement semantics, which is useful context for a mutation. However, it says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are cleared, or what errors/replies occur, leaving meaningful gaps for a write operation.

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: purpose first, editable surface second, prerequisite workflow third. No filler, no repetition of the schema, fully front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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 single-parameter edit tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, editable fields, and the required read-modify-write workflow. It stops short of explaining replacement behavior for unmentioned fields or failure modes, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the 'series' object and its required 'id'. The description adds real meaning by enumerating which sub-fields are editable (monitored, quality profile, path, tags) and reinforcing that a complete object must be supplied, going slightly beyond the schema text.

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+resource ('Edit an existing series') and immediately names the mutable dimensions (monitored status, quality profile, path, tags), which cleanly separates it from sonarr_add_series and sonarr_delete_series. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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 an explicit workflow: fetch the object with sonarr_get_series, modify it, then pass it here. This is concrete procedural guidance that steers the agent to the prerequisite call. It lacks any negative guidance (e.g., use sonarr_refresh_series instead when only refreshing), so it falls short of a 5.

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