cleanuparr_update_general_config

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

The tool has a destructiveHint annotation, so agents already know it's destructive. The description adds that the action is 'Replace', implying a full overwrite, but does not disclose specifics like whether unspecified fields reset to defaults or require additional permissions. Minimal added 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 one sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and the field list is compact. No unnecessary words.

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 description is adequate for a straightforward replacement operation but lacks details about the effects of replacing the entire config (e.g., resetting omitted fields) and how it relates to other config tools. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered, but the operational impact is 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?

The input schema is minimal (a single free-form config object with no descriptions), so the description carries the parameter documentation burden. It lists key fields such as dryRun, retry/timeout, ignoredDownloads, connectivity, retention, log, and auth objects, giving the agent a better sense of what the config contains. However, it doesn't define the structure or types for these sub-objects.

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 'Replace general config' with a specific verb and resource, and the field enumeration helps identify what the general config covers. It distinguishes from sibling config-update tools by naming the 'general' config rather than a specific module config.

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 clear context (this tool replaces the general config) but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to other config update tools. Usage is implied from the name and description.

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