qui_update_cross_seed_completion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the HTTP method (PUT) which implies mutation, but doesn't state potential side effects, idempotency, required authentication, or error conditions. The description is purely about request formatting, leaving behavioral traits largely undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and immediately explains the argument passing convention. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or verbose explanations.

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 minimal schema and lack of annotations, the description should specify the required parameters (e.g., instanceID) and any expected body fields. It only provides a generic pattern for argument structure without enumerating the actual path/query/body keys, making it insufficient for a standalone invocation. The presence of an output schema offsets return-value documentation, but key input specifics remain missing.

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 description adds meaningful structure beyond the loose schema: path variables go directly in 'arguments', query values in 'arguments.params', and request body in 'arguments.body'. This is critical because the schema only has an arbitrary 'arguments' object with no inner field documentation, making the convention the only practical guide for constructing a call.

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 operation as a PUT to the /cross-seed/completion/{instanceID} endpoint, which is the 'update cross-seed completion' action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_get_cross_seed_completion which performs a read. However, it doesn't explain what 'completion' means or the effect of updating it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 (path/query/body structure) but doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over related tools like qui_update_cross_seed_settings or qui_cross_seed_apply.

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