create_settings_sonarr

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, repeatable nature of this operation is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and the need to consult the GET/schema endpoint before sending a body, but it does not describe side effects, validation behavior, or what happens if a Sonarr instance already exists.

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 minimal and front-loaded: action first, endpoint second, then a single Args line. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant 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 create endpoint with an opaque body, the description provides the essential discovery path: the endpoint, the body argument, and the instruction to consult GET/schema first. Given the output schema exists and annotations cover idempotency/safety, the missing operational details are not critical for correct invocation.

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 gives no field-level information for 'body' (0% coverage), so the description's directive to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint is a useful compensating hint. It does not, however, enumerate any actual body fields or expected structure, leaving the agent reliant on an external discovery step.

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 first sentence, 'Create Sonarr instance,' uses a specific verb and resource, and the endpoint 'POST /api/v1/settings/sonarr' reinforces exactly what is being created. It is distinguishable from siblings like create_settings_sonarr_test, though the description does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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 instruction to 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' is valuable prerequisite guidance and implies the tool should not be called before understanding the body schema. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or mention of related alternatives such as update_settings_sonarr_by_sonarr_id or create_settings_sonarr_test.

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