qui_delete_automation

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

The annotations already include destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms the DELETE endpoint. However, the description adds no further behavioral context, such as permanence, required permissions, or side effects. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds meaningful transparency beyond what the structured hint provides.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the endpoint, the second gives parameter-passing conventions. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 is adequate for invoking the endpoint but omits key contextual details: it never explicitly says the tool deletes an automation, does not name the required path variables (instanceID, ruleID), and does not mention the destructive consequence beyond what annotations imply. Given the output schema exists, return values are covered, but the missing explicit statement of purpose and required parameters leave a gap.

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?

With schema coverage at 0% and a generic 'arguments' object, the description provides essential structure: 'Pass path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON request body in arguments.body.' This compensates for the schema's opacity by explaining how to organize path, query, and body components, though it stops short of naming the specific required variables.

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 explicitly states 'Call qui's DELETE /instances/{instanceID}/automations/{ruleID} endpoint', which precisely identifies the action (DELETE), the resource (automations), and the path structure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_create_automation or qui_update_automation.

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 explains how to structure arguments (path/query/body) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like needing an instanceID and ruleID, nor does it reference the preview tool (qui_preview_automation_delete) for safe verification. Usage context is entirely absent.

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