patch_series

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

Annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond those hints. It does not mention whether these actions trigger long-running scans or searches, require permissions, or have external side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose followed by a short argument list. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety/idempotency, the description is mostly sufficient. The main gap is that both parameters are optional, yet the description does not say what happens when seriesid or action is omitted.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description defines both parameters with human-readable meaning: seriesid is the Sonarr series ID and action constrains valid values to the four-operation list. It does not explain optionality or defaults, but the schema supplies those and the definitions are sufficient to construct a valid call.

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?

States that the tool runs actions on specific series and enumerates valid actions (scan-disk, search-missing, search-wanted, sync). The resource (series) and operation are clear enough to distinguish it from sibling patch_* tools, though 'run actions' is somewhat generic without naming a concrete outcome.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The action list and 'specific series' wording imply it is for series-level operations, but the description never states what it is not for or when a sibling tool should be chosen.

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