add_root_folder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a write operation and surfaces the important precondition about path existence and Sonarr write access. However, it does not mention error behavior, duplicate handling, or confirmation of success.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The operation verb is front-loaded, and the only necessary behavioral caveat follows immediately.

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 single-parameter tool with a fully described schema, the description plus schema provide the essential information: what to do, what parameter to pass, and what prerequisite must hold. The lack of an output schema and minimal error-handling detail are minor gaps for such a simple mutation.

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 input schema already documents the only parameter with a clear example ('Absolute path as Sonarr sees it, e.g. '/tv''). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful constraint (path must exist and be writable by Sonarr) but does not otherwise expand parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('root folder'), making the operation immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_root_folders, get_root_folder, and delete_root_folder.

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 states the key prerequisite for use: the path must exist and be writable by Sonarr. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the operation is unambiguous and no direct alternative exists among sibling tools.

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