qui_apply_automations

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 only reveals that this is a POST call, implying a mutation, but does not state consequences, required permissions, or what the response contains. The side effects of applying automations are entirely undisclosed.

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 that front-loads the endpoint and method, followed by concise parameter conventions. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description omits the tool's business purpose, expected request body content, and any side effects. For a mutating 'apply' operation, the agent needs more context to invoke it correctly, making the description incomplete for real-world use.

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 is just a generic `arguments` object with `additionalProperties: true`, so the description adds essential semantics by specifying that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in `arguments.params`, and a JSON body in `arguments.body`. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, although it doesn't enumerate the specific fields for this endpoint.

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 exact endpoint and HTTP method (POST /instances/{instanceID}/automations/apply), providing a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explain what 'apply automations' does functionally or distinguish it from similar automation tools like qui_dry_run_automations or qui_run_cross_seed_automation, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 gives parameter-passing mechanics but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

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