qui_cancel_orphan_scan

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

The annotation provides destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it is destructive, but the description adds no context about what the destruction entails. It does not explain whether the scan run is aborted, if the operation is reversible, or if any associated data is deleted. The description only explains how to structure the request, not the behavioral consequences.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently states the endpoint and the argument-passing convention, and every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation, the description is incomplete. It lacks an explicit statement of what the tool does (cancel orphan scan run), when it should be used, and what the expected outcome or side effects are. Although the output schema exists, the operational context is missing.

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 only a generic arguments object with no property definitions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and the request body in arguments.body. This gives the agent a concrete convention for invoking the endpoint, though it does not enumerate the specific path variables or their types.

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 endpoint as DELETE /instances/{instanceID}/orphan-scan/runs/{runID}, which implies cancellation of an orphan scan run, but it never explicitly states that the tool cancels an orphan scan. The tool name provides the primary semantic, while the description focuses on HTTP mechanics. This is clearer than a tautology but lacks a direct statement of function.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for canceling a running orphan scan, nor does it distinguish from related tools like qui_trigger_orphan_scan or qui_confirm_orphan_deletion. The sibling list shows context, but the description itself provides no selection criteria.

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