qui_delete_torznab_indexer

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 permanence, side effects on related data, or permission requirements. It merely restates the HTTP method.

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 concise sentence without wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of omitting key tool-specific details, making it less useful than it could be.

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 destructive delete operation, the description lacks explicit identification of the resource ID and any side effects or prerequisites. While an output schema exists, the description itself is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by naming parameters. It gives a generic pattern for path variables, query values, and body, but fails to explicitly mention the required indexerID path variable for this specific endpoint.

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 identifies the DELETE endpoint for torznab indexers, making the action unambiguous. The verb 'DELETE' and resource path clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like qui_get_torznab_indexer or qui_update_torznab_indexer.

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 (e.g., whether to delete or disable an indexer). It only explains a generic argument-passing convention, which is not usage context.

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