cleanuparr_update_seeker_config

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals destructiveness. The description adds the context that this is a replacement operation, implying existing config is overwritten. However, it does not disclose what happens to unspecified settings or the irreversible nature of the change, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it sacrifices important detail 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?

Given the destructive nature, nested config object, and sparse schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention how to obtain the current config, what fields are required or optional, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description alone does not provide enough context for safe usage.

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 carries the burden for explaining the 'config' parameter. It lists some conceptual areas but does not provide concrete property names, expected structure, or examples. The schema only shows an object with additionalProperties true, offering no guidance, so the description fails to fully compensate.

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 specifies the action ('Replace'), the resource ('Seeker config'), and the key components ('search toggles, strategy, grace period, and instances'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_seeker_config (read) and other update_*_config tools.

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 through the verb 'Replace' and resource name, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention the complementary get_seeker_config. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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