cleanuparr_update_notification_provider

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this operation is destructive, and the description's "Replace" aligns with that. However, the description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as what happens to the existing provider or whether the replacement is atomic. The secret placeholder note is more about parameter usage than behavior.

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 concise, with two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and provide a key usage tip. It is front-loaded and avoids wasted words, though it sacrifices informative content for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is a destructive update with a nested object parameter and no parameter documentation. The description lacks critical context: how to identify the provider, what fields can be updated, whether it is a full replacement, and any required permissions or side effects. It is not complete enough for a safe invocation.

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 must compensate, but it does not explain the roles of provider_type, provider_id, or the provider object. The only parameter-related hint is "Use Cleanuparr placeholders for secrets," which vaguely implies the provider object contains secrets. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct update request.

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 "Replace a notification provider," which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, and test by the word "Replace." It lacks explicit differentiation but is unambiguous enough for the agent to understand the core action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus creating, deleting, or testing a notification provider. The only usage hint is to use Cleanuparr placeholders for secrets, which applies to parameter values, not tool selection. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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