qui_delete_arr_instance

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

The annotation already marks this as destructive, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, cascading effects, or required permissions. The description merely restates the DELETE method and provides argument structure guidance, which is more parameter-related than behavioral.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the operation, and every sentence serves a clear purpose: identifying the endpoint and explaining the argument structure. There is 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?

Given the destructive nature and vague schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to state that an instance ID is required, how to pass it, or the consequences of deletion. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing input details.

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 object with no parameter definitions (0% coverage). The description provides a general convention for passing path variables, query values, and body, but it does not identify the specific 'id' path variable or any other required fields for this endpoint, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 states the operation as DELETE /arr/instances/{id}, which is specific to deleting an ARR instance. It distinguishes from sibling tools like qui_update_arr_instance and qui_get_arr_instance by explicitly identifying the HTTP method and resource.

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 usage is implied from the DELETE method and endpoint, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus other ARR instance tools, nor does it provide prerequisites or alternatives. It focuses on how to call the endpoint rather than the condition for its use.

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