qui_create_external_program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains how to structure arguments (path variables, params, body) but does not state what the tool actually does, what side effects occur (e.g., creating a resource), any permission requirements, or response handling. The POST endpoint implies mutation, but the description lacks direct behavioral disclosure.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately explains argument passing. Every word serves a purpose; no wasted text.

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 though an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a create operation. It never explicitly says that this tool creates an external program, omits required body fields, and provides no information about validation, errors, or expected responses. The argument-passing convention is useful but insufficient for a complex POST endpoint.

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 has a single 'arguments' object with no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful structure by specifying that path variables, query values, and request body are passed within arguments, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not enumerate specific required fields or provide examples, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema detail.

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 /external-programs/' which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list, update, delete, and execute by the HTTP method and path, though it does not explicitly state 'create a new external program' as the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for creating external programs or contrast with update/delete/list tools. The endpoint name implies creation, but the description offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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