patch_movies

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already conveyed. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond listing the actions themselves; it does not explain what each action does, side effects, or any authorization requirements. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose, the HTTP method, and a clean Args list. There is no wasted wording, and the critical information is front-loaded. This is an ideal example of brevity without loss of needed information.

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 simple, but the description omits important context: both parameters are optional in the schema, yet the description implies radarrid is needed to target a specific movie, without clarifying whether omitting it acts on all movies. It also does not explain what each action does, leaving an agent to infer meaning from the action names. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It explains radarrid as 'Radarr movie ID' and lists the allowed values for action, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type definitions. It does not detail each action's semantics, but the list is sufficient for selection.

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 the verb 'Run actions' and the resource 'specific movies', which is clear. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like patch_series, though the action list is movie-specific, making the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 tool versus alternatives like patch_series or patch_episodes_subtitles. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or any contextual conditions for invocation. The only implicit cue is that it's for movies, but this is not explicit.

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