qui_add_rss_feed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions, required authentication, or what happens on success or failure. The POST method implies mutation, but this is not explicitly stated, and there is no information about consequences or state changes.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the endpoint information. It contains no wasted words, and the structure is direct. However, it is too terse to compensate for the lack of parameter and context details, but conciseness itself is good.

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 likely requires an instance ID and feed details, the description is significantly incomplete. It does not explain the expected inputs, output, or any behavioral context. Although an output schema exists, its content is not shown, and the description does not help an agent understand what this tool does beyond a raw API call.

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 schema offers only a generic 'arguments' object with no property definitions, so schema coverage is 0%. The description explains how to structure arguments (path variables, query params, body) but does not enumerate the actual path variables, query parameters, or body fields. This is a partial structural hint but lacks the semantic detail needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 identifies the specific endpoint (POST /instances/{instanceID}/rss/feeds) and HTTP method, which implies adding an RSS feed, but it does not state the action in plain language. It lacks a specific verb like 'adds' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like qui_add_rss_folder or qui_set_rss_feed_url.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description only tells how to call the endpoint, not when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. It is simply an API call instruction with no decision-making support.

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