update_settings_radarr_by_radarr_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's "Update" aligns with these. The description adds the useful PUT-specific behavior and the need to fetch the schema before building the payload, but it does not disclose side effects, partial vs full replacement, or authorization expectations.

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 tightly structured with the one-line purpose, endpoint, and argument list. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the most important preparation guidance (read GET/schema first) is included without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values do not need to be described in prose. The description covers the key preparation step for the dynamic body parameter and the resource identifier, but it would be slightly stronger if it explicitly pointed to list_settings_radarr or the matching GET tool as the source for obtaining a valid radarr_id.

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 carries the parameter documentation burden. It explicitly defines radarr_id as "Radarr instance ID" and body as a request payload, and tells the agent to consult the matching GET or /schema endpoint for field details, which is essential because body is an opaque object with additionalProperties allowed.

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 and resource: "Update Radarr instance" and the PUT endpoint. It clearly identifies the target and differentiates it from the Sonarr counterpart, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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 description implies use for modifying an existing Radarr configuration and instructs the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint before constructing the body. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of create_settings_radarr, delete_settings_radarr_by_radarr_id, or the similar Sonarr update.

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