cleanuparr_feature_configs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It uses the word 'Replace' for all update operations, signaling overwrite semantics, and lists affected fields. However, it does not warn that omitted fields in the arguments might be cleared, nor mention any permissions or side effects beyond the replacement.

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 well-structured, starting with the usage pattern and then a bullet list of operations. Each bullet is concise and informative, with no redundant text, making it easy to scan and front-loaded with key instructions.

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 six operations with custom argument structures, but the description only hints at the fields for each. The arguments schema is permissive (any object), so it doesn't validate. Without a detailed argument list per operation, an agent cannot reliably construct valid calls, making the description incomplete despite having an output schema.

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 compensates. It defines the operation parameter via the enum and instructs the arguments dict to match the operation. For updates, it lists key fields like enabled, blacklistPath, per-arr settings, and Seeker toggles, though not exhaustive for every operation.

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 it handles Cleanuparr feature configs and enumerates six specific operations for three distinct configs (blacklist sync, malware blocker, Seeker). It distinguishes these from sibling tools that manage cleaner configs, health, jobs, events, stats, etc.

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?

It provides a concrete usage pattern: pass an operation and a matching arguments dict, and lists each operation's purpose. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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