qui_remove_categories

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

The annotation already marks the tool as destructive, and the description merely restates the HTTP DELETE method without adding new behavioral context. It does not disclose what resources are removed, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects. The description adds no value beyond the annotation and the tool name.

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 with no unnecessary words, and it front-loads the core instruction. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity comes at the cost of specificity. It earns its place by providing the key information about argument passing.

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 tool appears to be a generic API wrapper with dynamic arguments, yet the description omits critical details like the required instanceID and the format for identifying which categories to remove. While an output schema exists, the input side is deeply under-specified, making the description incomplete for practical use. The guidance on argument structure is a start but not sufficient.

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 input schema provides zero meaningful detail (only a generic 'arguments' object), so the description must compensate. It does explain the general structure of arguments (path variables, params, body), but it fails to specify which path variables are required (e.g., instanceID) or what the request body should contain. This is insufficient for correctly invoking the tool.

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 specifies the DELETE /instances/{instanceID}/categories endpoint, which clearly indicates a remove operation for categories. The HTTP method and path make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like qui_get_categories and qui_edit_category. However, it does not explicitly use the word 'remove' or 'delete categories,' leaving a slight indirectness.

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 only explains how to structure arguments (path variables, query values, body) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_edit_category or qui_delete_category. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an instance ID or category ID, nor any indication of when this operation is appropriate.

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