cleanuparr_events

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful constraints (page_size capped at 500, count capped at 50, deprecated v1 stats not exposed, default values). However, it does not disclose side effects of mutating operations like delete_strikes or resolve_manual_event, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a clear gap for a tool with write 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 appropriately structured as a bulleted list of operation signatures. The opening sentence explains the dispatch pattern, and each line is compact and self-contained. There is no fluff; every line adds necessary operational detail.

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 tool's complexity (18 operations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the dispatch mechanism, parameters, defaults, and key constraints. It does not explain return values (covered by output schema) but also omits error handling and side-effect warnings, which would be valuable for a dispatcher with mutating operations.

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' as an enum and 'arguments' as a generic object with no additional properties. The description compensates by listing each operation's parameters, defaults, types (e.g., ISO-8601 dates), and caps. This is essential for constructing correct invocation arguments and goes well beyond the schema, though it does not fully document every parameter's type or allowed values.

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?

Description clearly states it handles 'cleanuparr events operations on Cleanuparr' and enumerates 18 specific operations with verbs like delete, get, list, and resolve targeting events, strikes, and stats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on config, health, jobs, and stats by its event-specific scope.

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 the tool is for event and strike operations and provides usage instructions for each sub-operation, including required arguments and default values. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the operation list and naming make the appropriate context clear. It also notes API caps and date formats, which guide correct invocation.

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