cleanuparr_notifications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses some useful traits: secret fields may be redacted, update 'Replaces' a provider, delete is destructive. But it does not mention permissions, reversibility, rate limits, or potential side effects of testing a provider.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key guidance about operation and arguments. The bullet list is scannable, each line earning its place with a concise operation summary and parameters. There is no 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?

For a multi-operation dispatcher, the description covers all operations with enough detail to select correctly. The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained. Minor gaps include no error behavior or explicit arguments dict structure, but overall it is adequate.

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 does so by listing operation-specific parameter names like provider_type, provider, and provider_id, and by noting common fields (name, isEnabled, event flags) plus provider-specific DTOs. This adds real meaning beyond the generic top-level schema, though it stops short of fully documenting the provider object's required structure.

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 identifies the tool as 'cleanuparr notifications operations' and enumerates six specific operations (create/delete/list/test/update providers, apprise status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other Cleanuparr domains. It lacks a single verb+resource formulation, but the operation list provides concrete purpose.

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 instructs users to pass an operation and matching arguments dict, and each operation has a one-line summary. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools, nor does it provide exclusions like 'for jobs use cleanuparr_jobs'. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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