qui_delete_scan_directory

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already discloses the destructive nature. The description adds the precise HTTP method and endpoint path, but does not add additional behavioral context such as irreversibility, effect on associated files, or error behavior. Since annotations cover the core safety trait, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, no filler, front-loaded with the endpoint and immediately followed by argument-passing guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation. But the description lacks any domain context about the purpose (beyond the endpoint), potential side effects, or usage conditions. It is minimally sufficient for a straightforward delete operation but could benefit from stating that this deletes a scan directory and any associated data.

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 generic freeform 'arguments' object with zero coverage. The description explains the argument structure (path variables, query params, body) and the endpoint path reveals that a directoryID must be supplied in arguments. However, it does not explicitly list required fields or types, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema detail.

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 identifies the action as a DELETE call to a scan directory endpoint, and the tool name confirms it deletes a scan directory. It distinguishes from sibling scan directory tools (list, create, get, update) by specifying the DELETE method and the resource path. However, it lacks a plain-language statement of the effect (e.g., 'deletes the specified scan directory').

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., directory must exist) or indicate when to prefer this over related directory tools. The description only explains how to invoke the endpoint, not when.

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