radarr_update_tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only that this mutates an existing tag rather than creating one; it says nothing about whether movie-to-tag associations survive the rename, what happens if the ID is unknown, or whether the call is idempotent.

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?

A single six-word sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness contributes to the gaps in other dimensions.

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?

With two fully documented required parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. It falls short of complete because a mutation tool should indicate return behavior or failure conditions for an unknown tag ID.

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% — the schema already explains that `id` comes from radarr_get_tags and that `label` is the new label. The description adds no format, length, or uniqueness constraints, so it neither compensates nor detracts; 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?

The description uses a specific verb ("rename") with a scoped resource ("an existing Radarr tag"), which cleanly distinguishes it from radarr_create_tag and radarr_delete_tag. The "Radarr" qualifier also separates it from the sibling sonarr_update_tag, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus radarr_create_tag or radarr_delete_tag, and no stated precondition such as needing a tag that already exists. The word "existing" hints at a prerequisite, but the agent must infer it.

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