cleanuparr_update_dead_torrent_config

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this is a destructive operation. The description adds the nuance that settings are 'replaced,' implying an overwrite rather than a partial update, but it doesn't clarify whether unspecified settings are reset, what fields are required, or any other behavioral details. This is acceptable but not richly informative.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no wasted text or 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?

The tool is a destructive update with a nested config object and an output schema. The description is concise but leaves gaps: no info on how to structure the config object beyond listing keys, no mention that download_client_id is required, and no guidance on partial vs full replacement. The existence of a sibling get_dead_torrent_config helps, but the description alone is not fully self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates somewhat by listing the expected config fields: enabled, targetCategory, useTag, maxStrikes, categories. However, it does not explain the types, formats, or whether these fields are all required, and it omits any mention of download_client_id. This is partial compensation for the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and identifies the exact resource ('dead-torrent settings'), listing the key settings involved. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling get/update config tools by focusing on the dead-torrent config specifically.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or any exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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