qui_update_log_exclusions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (PUT), implying mutation, but says nothing about side effects, authorization requirements, idempotency, or whether the update replaces or merges existing entries. No behavioral context beyond the method is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the endpoint and parameter conventions without any waste. Every part 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?

The description is minimally sufficient to make a basic HTTP call, but it lacks richer context such as typical use cases, prerequisites, or what the request body should contain. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the tool would benefit from more behavioral and usage context.

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 generic arguments object with 0% property description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter-passing convention: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This is essential for invoking the tool, but it doesn't enumerate the specific path, query, or body fields, leaving some ambiguity.

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 endpoint (PUT /log-exclusions) and the tool name implies updating log exclusions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_get_log_exclusions. However, it lacks a semantic explanation of what log exclusions are or what an update does, relying on the name for that context.

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, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to other log exclusion or settings tools. It is purely a calling instruction with no usage context.

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