qui_remove_rss_item

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

The destructiveHint annotation already indicates destructive behavior, and the description's reference to DELETE is consistent. However, it adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects, so it only minimally supplements the annotation.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and clearly explains the argument structure without any redundant or unnecessary words.

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 description covers the endpoint and argument structure but omits specifics about what identifies the RSS item to be removed (e.g., which path/query/body field) and any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema helps for return values, but input details remain ambiguous for a destructive operation.

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 is a free-form object with 0% coverage, so the description's explanation of how to structure arguments (path variables directly, query in params, body in body) is essential and adds significant meaning. It does not list the actual path variables or body fields needed, but it provides a crucial framework.

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 specific HTTP DELETE method and resource path (/instances/{instanceID}/rss/items), which clearly implies removing an RSS item. It is specific but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like qui_move_rss_item.

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. It only explains how to call the endpoint, not the circumstances or exclusions for using it.

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