qui_update_arr_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions the HTTP method (implied mutation) and argument structure, but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, error behavior, or what the response contains. This is minimal transparency for a mutating tool.

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 immediately identifies the endpoint and then provides the argument structure. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the unstructured schema and lack of annotations, this description is incomplete. It explains the top-level argument organization but fails to specify required path variables, available query parameters, or the JSON body's shape. The presence of an output schema doesn't mitigate the missing input specifications, leaving the agent guessing about the payload.

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 a single free-form 'arguments' object with zero property definitions, so the description must compensate. It does add value by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and the JSON body in arguments.body. However, it does not enumerate the required 'id' path parameter, query parameter names, or expected body fields, leaving much to be inferred.

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 clearly identifies the tool as invoking the PUT /arr/instances/{id} endpoint, which semantically maps to updating an ARR instance. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create/get/delete by HTTP method and resource path, though it does not explicitly use the word 'update'.

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 implied usage context: since it is a PUT endpoint, the tool is meant to update an existing instance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., create, delete) and offers no exclusions or alternative tool references, leaving the when-to-use guidance to inference.

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