sonarr_update_tag

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds that the operation renames an existing tag, confirming it mutates a label, but it does not explain effects such as whether the old label is lost or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple operation, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for useful context.

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 two-parameter mutation with full schema descriptions and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is mostly sufficient. A brief note about the required tag's existence or the effect of the rename would complete it.

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 both required parameters, including that 'id' comes from sonarr_get_tags and 'label' is the new tag label. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Rename') with a specific resource ('existing Sonarr tag'), making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes this from sonarr_create_tag and sonarr_delete_tag by saying 'existing' and 'rename', though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 word 'existing' implies this is only for tags that already exist and should not be used for creation, which gives some usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like sonarr_create_tag or radarr_update_tag, and no prerequisites.

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