qui_set_rss_feed_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether existing values are overwritten. The word 'set' implies a mutating operation, but nothing is explained about what happens to the feed or its URL. Completely opaque.

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 short and front-loaded with the endpoint, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified: it provides a generic call convention but lacks concrete details. It earns its place, but the level of conciseness comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The agent does not know what arguments to supply, what constitutes a valid body, or what to expect in the response. Given the tool's name suggests a specific action, the total absence of parameter and effect information makes it inadequate.

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 has a single generic 'arguments' property with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says to pass path variables, query values, and a body, but does not specify which path variables exist (e.g., instanceID), what query parameters are accepted, or what the JSON body should contain. This gives the agent no meaningful parameter information.

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 names the specific endpoint (PUT /instances/{instanceID}/rss/feeds/url) and ties it to the tool name, so the action is somewhat clear. However, it does not explain the actual domain effect (e.g., updating the URL of an RSS feed) and relies on the name for meaning. It distinguishes from siblings via the endpoint but lacks a plain-language purpose statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_add_rss_feed or qui_set_rss_rule. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. The description simply instructs how to make the API call without any decision-support.

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