qui_update_instance_status

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 reveals the HTTP method, the endpoint, and how to pass arguments. It does not mention that the operation modifies instance status, the required permissions, idempotency, or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, front-loads the endpoint, and gives the key usage rule without any filler. Every phrase earns its place, though it assumes familiarity with API concepts like path variables and JSON bodies.

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 tool has an open-ended arguments object with no schema hints, and the description does not enumerate required fields, valid status values, or the expected request body shape. While an output schema exists, the input side is under-specified enough that an agent cannot reliably construct a correct invocation without external knowledge of the qui API.

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 extremely permissive with no property descriptions, but the description provides useful structural semantics: path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. However, it does not name the expected path variable, query parameters, or body fields, so the agent still lacks concrete parameter details.

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 identifies the specific endpoint and HTTP method, which distinguishes it from sibling tools at a technical level, but it never states the effect of the operation beyond the name 'update instance status.' It is not a full tautology, but the purpose is heavily dependent on the tool name and endpoint path.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The only usage information is the argument-passing convention, which explains how to structure the call but not why or when to choose this tool.

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