qui_delete_backup_run

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructiveness, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, prerequisites, or effects. It only describes the invocation format, not the behavior beyond the endpoint.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the HTTP method and endpoint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a simple delete operation, and the presence of an output schema and destructiveHint covers return values and safety. However, it lacks an explicit plain-language statement of what the tool does and any usage context, making it minimally sufficient.

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 has a single generic 'arguments' parameter with no documented structure. The description adds valuable meaning by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and the JSON body in arguments.body, which is essential for crafting a correct invocation.

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 states it calls the DELETE /instances/{instanceID}/backups/runs/{runID} endpoint, which clearly indicates deletion of a specific backup run. It differentiates from sibling qui_delete_all_backup_runs by targeting a single runID, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it deletes a single backup run or that qui_delete_all_backup_runs should be used for deleting all runs.

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