create_movies_blacklist

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds the HTTP endpoint (POST /api/movies/blacklist) and the list of arguments, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens on success, whether existing blacklist entries are replaced, or any side effects beyond adding an entry. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the action, but it includes a redundant HTTP endpoint line and an Args block that mostly repeats the schema. The one-line glosses add little value. It is not bloated, but it is not tightly written either; the Args section could be trimmed or enriched.

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 has 5 required parameters, no enums, and an output schema, but the description does not explain the purpose of blacklisting, the meaning of 'radarrid' (Radarr ID) in context, or what the output schema contains. The description is adequate for a simple create operation but lacks enough context for an agent to know why or when to invoke it, especially with 0% schema coverage and no parameter details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all five parameter names with one-word glosses ('Radarr ID', 'Provider name', etc.), which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names. The glosses are nearly tautological (e.g., 'provider: Provider name') and do not explain formats, constraints, or how the parameters relate to the blacklist operation. This is a clear gap given the 0% coverage.

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 a specific action ('Add a movies subtitles to blacklist') and identifies the resource (movies blacklist). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_episodes_blacklist and delete_movies_blacklist, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The grammar is slightly awkward ('a movies subtitles') but the intent is clear.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for movies (not episodes), nor does it explain when blacklisting is appropriate. The sibling list includes create_episodes_blacklist and delete_movies_blacklist, but the description does not differentiate or provide selection criteria.

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