cleanuparr_create_arr_instance

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description provides no behavioral context about side effects, overwriting behavior, or required permissions. It only lists DTO fields, failing to disclose what happens during creation. The annotation signals potential destructive behavior, but the description does not clarify this.

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 a single sentence with an appended field list, front-loading the core action. It is concise, directly informative, and contains no fluff—every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (nested object, destructiveHint) and the rich output schema, the description is minimal. It provides the DTO fields but lacks guidance on usage, prerequisites, or error behavior. The output schema covers return values, so that gap is acceptable, but the description could be more complete for a create operation.

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 0% and the instance object is a nested parameter with additionalProperties allowed. The description compensates by listing the DTO fields (enabled, name, url, apiKey, version, externalUrl), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the arr_type parameter or the meaning of each field, limiting full compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Create an *arr instance') with a specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update/delete/list. Additionally, it lists the DTO fields, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling tools (create vs. update/delete), but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusion criteria. It simply repeats the purpose without guidance.

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