qui_delete_external_program

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

The destructiveHint annotation already informs the agent that this is destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds the HTTP method (DELETE) but does not disclose any side effects, irreversible actions, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentences, no redundant phrasing, and front-loaded with the key information (the endpoint). Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is clear and direct.

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 simple delete operation with a destructive annotation and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the invocation pattern. It covers the HTTP endpoint and the argument conventions, which is the main challenge given the generic schema. It doesn't elaborate on return values, but the output schema presumably covers that.

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 generic with a single 'arguments' object and no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining how to pass path variables, query values, and request body (arguments.params and arguments.body). This is essential for invoking the tool correctly, though it doesn't enumerate specific parameter names (e.g., id).

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 names the HTTP endpoint ('DELETE /external-programs/{id}') and states the action (call the endpoint), clearly identifying it as the operation to delete an external program. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_list_external_programs, qui_create_external_program, and qui_update_external_program.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and endpoint (it's the delete operation for external programs), but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., ID must exist), or consequences. The description focuses on how to structure the call rather than when to use it.

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