qui_update_backup_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only explains how to structure arguments as a generic wrapper. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, potential side effects, required permissions, or response behavior.

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 clear structure, but it is under-specified, missing purpose and behavioral context. This is not conciseness; it is insufficient specification.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and a free-form schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what backup settings are being updated, the request body shape, or the successful outcome, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 zero property documentation, and the description provides a generic pattern for placing path variables, query values, and a JSON body. However, it does not name the specific path variables (e.g., instanceID) or describe the expected body fields, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema detail.

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 endpoint and HTTP method, which identifies the resource and action (updating backup settings), but it does not explicitly state the purpose, relying on the tool name for intent. It provides some sibling differentiation via the specific endpoint path, but lacks a clear action verb beyond 'Call.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as qui_get_backup_settings or qui_trigger_backup. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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