qui_add_rss_folder

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the call is a POST, implying a side-effecting creation, but it doesn't describe what happens on success, required permissions, error behaviors, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the endpoint and immediately followed by parameter-passing instructions. It avoids unnecessary wording and is well-structured for readability, though the brevity causes under-specification.

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 an empty schema, no annotations, and only a general parameter convention, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot determine what fields to send in the body or query to successfully create an RSS folder. The description provides structure but not enough content to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 provides zero property definitions (only a free-form 'arguments' object), and the description adds a general convention for placing path variables, query values, and body. However, it fails to name the actual parameters (e.g., instanceID, folder name) or required fields, leaving the agent without concrete parameter semantics.

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 specifies the exact endpoint ('POST /instances/{instanceID}/rss/folders') and the tool's name implies adding an RSS folder, but it never explicitly states this action in functional terms. It distinguishes from siblings via the unique endpoint path, but reads more like an API call instruction than a purpose statement.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_add_rss_feed. The only instruction is how to pass parameters (path variables, query values, and body), which addresses invocation mechanics, not selection context or prerequisites.

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