cleanuparr_delete_seeding_rule

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already discloses the destructive nature. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, cascading effects, required permissions) beyond repeating the action 'Delete'. Since it adds no value beyond annotations, a score of 2 is appropriate.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately parseable. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and the destructiveHint annotation, the description is largely complete. It does not mention edge cases (e.g., behavior if rule not found) or side effects, but these are expected for a delete operation and not required given the output schema and annotations.

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 provides only 'rule_id' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating 'by GUID', clarifying that the parameter is a GUID-formatted identifier. This is crucial for correctly constructing the call, though it doesn't specify format details like UUID version.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a seeding rule'), with a specific identification method ('by GUID'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_queue_rule or delete_arr_instance, which target different resource types.

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 usage: when you need to remove a seeding rule, use this tool. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mentions alternatives (e.g., soft-delete vs permanent removal). The context of sibling tools makes the usage clear, but there is no explicit direction.

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