cleanuparr_update_seeding_rule

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description notes that 'Priority is ignored by the upstream update', which is a specific behavioral detail that could affect user expectations. This adds valuable context not present in the structured data.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. Extremely concise without unnecessary filler.

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 has a destructive annotation and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the sparse parameter descriptions leave gaps in understanding the 'rule' payload. Overall adequate for a simple update but lacks completeness for open-ended parameters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by GUID' for rule_id and implies priority is ignored, but does not explain the 'rule' object structure or any field details. This is insufficient for an open nested object.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Replace a seeding rule by GUID', which uses a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this update operation from sibling create/delete/list/reorder operations for seeding rules.

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 usage: replace an existing seeding rule identified by GUID. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create or delete, nor provide exclusions. The context is clear but not fully spelled out.

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