cleanuparr_cleaner_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates mutating vs. read-only through operation names (create, delete, update) and notes one behavioral quirk ('Priority is ignored by the upstream update'). However, it does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a config tool with many mutating operations.

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 long but justified by the need to document 19 sub-operations. It is well-structured as a bulleted list with each line containing the function name and its arguments/fields, making it scannable. The opening sentence provides the general pattern, and every line adds usable information, though the length is substantial.

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 high tool complexity (19 operations), sparse schema, and no annotations, the description covers all operations and their parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, it lacks contextual details such as how to obtain required GUIDs (e.g., download_client_id) or any mention of error conditions, which would improve completeness.

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 only defines 'operation' (an enum) and a generic 'arguments' dict, providing zero detail about parameters. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'arguments' must match the operation's parameters, then listing parameter names and DTO fields for each of the 19 operations. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 this tool performs Cleanuparr cleaner config operations and enumerates all 19 supported operations with explicit verbs (create, delete, get, list, update). It distinguishes from sibling tools (health status, jobs, events, etc.) by focusing on config management, though it is a dispatcher rather than a single 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?

Usage is implied by the listed operations (e.g., to create a queue rule, call cleanuparr_create_queue_rule), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The overloaded nature of the tool (single operation parameter) makes context implicit rather than explicit.

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