overseerr_request_movie_to_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that library_name must match exactly and that user_display_name may have duplicates, but it does not explain side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. As a mutation tool with no safety profile, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args list. Every line provides useful information without filler, and the length is appropriate for a three-parameter tool.

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?

The description covers purpose and all parameter semantics, but there is no output schema or annotations, so the description should explain return value and usage flow. It does not mention what happens after submission, error cases, or whether to fetch available libraries/users first. Adequate for a simple request but has clear gaps.

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 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: tmdb_id is the TMDB ID, library_name is the target Radarr library name that must match exactly, and user_display_name must be an exact name and may have duplicates. It does not explicitly direct the agent to get_available_libraries or get_users, but it provides enough context to interpret the values.

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 states 'Submit a movie request to a specific Overseerr library identified by its name, on behalf of a specific user.' This specifies a clear verb (submit), resource (movie request to Overseerr library), and scope (by library name and user). It distinguishes from the sibling TV tool by explicitly mentioning movie request and Radarr (Movie) library.

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 implies usage for movie requests as opposed to TV requests, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like overseerr_request_tv_to_library. The parameter notes 'Available: None fetched' hint that the agent may need to fetch library/user lists first, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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