qui_confirm_orphan_deletion

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

The destructiveHint annotation indicates the action is destructive, but the description adds no further behavioral context, such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or what exactly gets deleted. It relies entirely on the annotation and name for transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the endpoint and the argument marshaling convention with no unnecessary words. It is concise and efficiently structured.

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 open-ended schema and destructive nature, the description could mention prerequisites (e.g., a completed orphan scan run) and the exact effect of confirmation. The existing text covers the HTTP call pattern and argument structure, which is helpful, but leaves behavioral semantics to the annotation and name, making it adequate but not complete.

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 a bare free-form 'arguments' object with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's instruction to pass path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body is essential structural guidance. This compensates well, though it doesn't enumerate specific fields or value formats.

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 names the specific endpoint POST /instances/{instanceID}/orphan-scan/runs/{runID}/confirm, which clearly indicates a confirmation action for orphan deletion, reinforced by the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like qui_cancel_orphan_scan or qui_get_orphan_scan_run.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only instructs how to call the endpoint, without context such as 'use after an orphan scan run completes' or 'do not use if you only want to cancel the scan.'

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