qui_delete_all_backup_runs

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

The description is consistent with the destructiveHint annotation, which already signals danger. It adds no further behavioral context, such as irreversibility, scope of deletion, or confirmation requirements. Given the annotation covers the main risk, a neutral score is appropriate.

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 is front-loaded with the endpoint and follows a clear structure for argument passing. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 operation that deletes all backup runs, the description lacks important context such as impact on the instance, whether recovery is possible, or when this should be used. The generic argument structure further reduces completeness, leaving the agent to guess required inputs. The output schema covers return values, but the input side is underspecified.

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 is a generic 'arguments' object with 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains how to structure path variables, query parameters, and body, but does not enumerate required fields such as instanceID, available query parameters, or body schema. The endpoint mentions {instanceID} but the description does not explicitly list it as a required argument.

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 clearly names the DELETE endpoint for backup runs, which indicates the operation. The tool name includes 'all' to distinguish it from the singular qui_delete_backup_run. However, it relies on inference from the endpoint rather than explicitly stating 'delete all backup runs'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_delete_backup_run. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool name implies 'all' vs 'one', but the description does not explicitly address this distinction.

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