create_movies

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which the description implicitly matches by saying 'Update'. However, it does not disclose any additional side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds minimal value here.

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 short and well-structured: an action line, the HTTP endpoint, and a two-argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant fluff. The inclusion of the endpoint is a minor extra but not detrimental.

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 tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description's coverage is adequate for basic use. However, it omits any usage context, such as when to use this over patch_movies, and does not explain the 'none' option for profileid. The name/action mismatch also adds a small amount of ambiguity. Overall, it is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the sparse schema. It does provide brief explanations: 'radarrid: Radarr movie(s) ID' and 'profileid: Languages profile(s) ID or "none"'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare anyOf array/null types, but it does not clarify whether the values are arrays, the expected format, or how 'none' should be interpreted. The guidance is minimal but not absent.

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 clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'specific movies languages profile', which distinguishes it from siblings like create_movies_subtitles or create_movies_blacklist. However, the tool name 'create_movies' conflicts with the described 'Update' action, which could confuse agents about whether this is a creation or modification tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only gives the HTTP endpoint and argument descriptions, with no mention of when it should be chosen over similar sibling tools (e.g., patch_movies or create_movies_subtitles) or any conditions for use.

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