run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently reveals that execution is asynchronous and that the response only carries an id. It also clarifies parameter mapping per command, which is not visible from the schema alone. It stops short of describing failure modes or error responses, but the critical async behavior is well covered.

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 dense and front-loaded with the most important behavior (async execution and polling). The long allowed-command list is necessary because it defines the tool's entire surface. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is present.

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 complex 17-command tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: async nature, polling mechanism, allowed commands, and parameter expectations. It does not describe error cases or cancellation, but the core workflow an agent needs is fully specified.

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 coverage is already high, but the description adds real value by mapping specific command names to movie_ids and explicitly stating that all other allowed commands take no parameters. The example for params ('{ files: [1, 2] } for RenameFiles') clarifies how extra body fields are passed, which goes beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Queue') and resource ('a Radarr command'), and the allowed command list makes the scope unmistakable. The async note and reference to get_command distinguish it from sibling command-management tools like list_commands and get_command.

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 clearly explains that commands run asynchronously and that the response id should be polled with get_command, which directly guides usage. It also clarifies which commands take movie_ids and which take none. It does not explicitly state what to do with list_commands, but the polling workflow is enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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