qui_import_backup_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only describes parameter passing and gives no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens during import. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the endpoint, then provides clear guidance on argument placement. It contains no filler and every sentence contributes to understanding the call mechanics.

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 presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but with no annotations and an overly generic schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits behavioral context, usage conditions, and specific parameter details, making it difficult to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 (0% description coverage), so the description's instruction to place path variables, query values, and body in separate properties adds useful structure. However, it does not specify which parameters are required or what the JSON body should contain, leaving the agent to infer details 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 identifies the exact endpoint (POST /instances/{instanceID}/backups/import) which implies an import operation, but it does not explicitly state what importing entails or how it differs from siblings like qui_execute_backup_restore. The purpose is clear from the name and endpoint, but the description itself is more of a call instruction than a functional explanation.

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 such as qui_get_backup_manifest or qui_execute_backup_restore. It only explains how to structure arguments, not the conditions or contexts in which the tool should be invoked.

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