cleanuparr_test_arr_instance

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, yet the description presents the tool as a harmless 'test' operation without mentioning any potential side effects or what might be destroyed. This is a significant omission that could mislead an agent, though it is not an explicit contradiction since a test could theoretically be destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 followed by a concise list of DTO fields. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes only necessary details, avoiding redundancy.

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?

While an output schema exists and return values need not be described, the description remains incomplete. It omits critical context such as the purpose of the test (e.g., connectivity vs. credential validation), the destructive implications flagged by annotations, and any prerequisites or side effects. For a tool with a nested object and a destructive hint, this is insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains that the 'instance' object contains fields 'url, apiKey, version, optional instanceId', which compensates for the schema's opaque object type. However, it does not explain 'arr_type' or how to specify which *arr service (e.g., Sonarr, Radarr), leaving a gap.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Test an *arr connection.' This distinguishes it from siblings like create_arr_instance, delete_arr_instance, and test_download_client, making its function immediately obvious.

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 when to use the tool (to test an *arr connection) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives might be more appropriate. Sibling tools like test_download_client and test_notification_provider exist, but no differentiation is offered.

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