qui_update_dir_scan_settings

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

With no annotations present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only reveals the HTTP method (PATCH). It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what settings are affected.

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 immediately identifies the endpoint and then efficiently explains the argument conventions. No filler or repetition.

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 is adequate for a simple PATCH wrapper, but it lacks specifics about the request body structure and does not mention any return value or error behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values may be covered, but the missing fields for the settings payload still leave the description incomplete.

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's 'arguments' object is generic with 0% description coverage, so the description adds valuable structure by explaining how to map path variables, query values, and body. However, it omits the actual fields or keys for dir-scan settings, leaving the agent without enough detail to construct a precise request.

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 explicitly names the endpoint and HTTP method (PATCH /dir-scan/settings), making the tool's purpose unmistakably clear. It distinguishes itself from the sibling qui_get_dir_scan_settings by focusing on the update action.

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 qui_get_dir_scan_settings or other update tools. The description merely explains how to call the endpoint, not when or why to choose it over alternatives.

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