qui_delete_cross_seed_blocklist_entry

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals the operation is destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not state whether the deletion is permanent, whether it affects other instances, or any side effects. The description focuses only on request construction.

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 and not wordy, but it conveys minimal substantive information. It reads more like a generic API-invocation template than a tool-specific explanation, making it under-specified rather than elegantly concise.

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?

With a generic schema and only a destructive annotation, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand required inputs and behavioral outcomes. The output schema is present but does not compensate for the lack of explicit parameter documentation and tool-specific context.

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 free-form 'arguments' object with no parameter definitions, so the description helps by explaining where to put path variables, query values, and body. However, it does not explicitly list or describe the required instanceID and infohash parameters, leaving the agent to infer them from the endpoint path.

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 the HTTP endpoint and verb (DELETE /cross-seed/blocklist/{instanceID}/{infohash}), which clearly indicates the tool deletes a cross-seed blocklist entry. The resource is specific, but the description phrases it as 'call endpoint' rather than directly stating the action, and it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling blocklist tools (add/list).

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_add_cross_seed_blocklist_entry or qui_list_cross_seed_blocklist. There is no mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or typical use cases.

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