cleanuparr_create_queue_rule

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true is present, but the description does not elaborate on what destructive behavior entails (e.g., modifying existing rules, clearing strikes, removing configuration). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare, leaving the agent without insights into side effects or requirements.

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 concise sentence with a field list, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy. The list of fields is compact, though it could be better structured as a bulleted list for readability.

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 rule object, additionalProperties, no schema descriptions), the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid request. It lacks examples, explanations of terms like 'completion percentages' or 'changeCategory', and any clarification of valid values for 'kind'. Output schema exists, but the input side remains under-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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists common DTO fields (name, enabled, maxStrikes, privacyType, completion percentages, changeCategory), giving partial meaning to the 'rule' object. However, the 'kind' parameter is not explained, and the listed fields lack types or structural details, so compensation is incomplete.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('stall or slow queue rule'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanuparr_update_queue_rule, cleanuparr_list_queue_rules, and cleanuparr_delete_queue_rule. The phrase 'stall or slow' also hints at the 'kind' parameter's purpose.

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 when creating a queue rule, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_seeding_rule or create_download_client. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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