qui_create_arr_instance

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 explains how to pass arguments (path, query, body) but does not mention side effects (creating a resource), required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a create 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately clarifies argument mapping. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description lacks essential context for successful invocation: required path variables, query parameters, body schema, expected request format, and side effects. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing request semantics, and there are no annotations to fill the gaps.

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 generic 'arguments' object with no structure. The description adds critical meaning by specifying that path variables are top-level keys, query values go under arguments.params, and a JSON request body under arguments.body. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, although it does not enumerate the actual path, query, or body fields.

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 (POST /arr/instances), which combined with the tool name implies creating an arr instance. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying a unique endpoint, but it does not explicitly state the semantic action ('create an arr instance') and relies on REST conventions and the name.

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_update_arr_instance or qui_list_arr_instances. The intended context is only implied by the endpoint and name, with no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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