cleanuparr_update_orphaned_files_config

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: true, which matches the description's verb 'Replace'. The description adds value by naming the settings that are replaced, giving context about what is affected. It does not contradict the annotation, though it does not fully detail side effects beyond the listed settings.

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, streamlined sentence with the action 'Replace' front-loaded, followed by a concise enumeration of settings. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 covers the config fields well but omits any explanation of download_client_id and how the replace operation behaves (e.g., full overwrite vs. partial update). The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the input-side context is incomplete, especially given the low schema coverage.

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's list of config fields is crucial and provides significant semantics for the config object. However, download_client_id is left undescribed; while its name implies it is a client ID, the description does not clarify its role, 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 replaces orphaned-file settings and enumerates the specific fields involved (enabled, scanDirectories, orphanedDirectory, excludePatterns, minFileAgeHours, purgeAfterHours). This distinguishes it from other update_*_config sibling tools by resource type and 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 usage is implied by the name and description—it updates orphaned files config—but there are no explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives mentioned, or exclusions. It does not refer to the corresponding get_orphaned_files_config tool or other config update tools.

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