qui_update_scan_directory

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions it calls a PATCH endpoint, implying a mutation, but does not explain the effects, required permissions, reversibility, or response characteristics. The agent is left to infer what 'update' means, and the description adds no transparency beyond the HTTP method.

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 concise and front-loaded with the endpoint, avoiding unnecessary verbiage. It is only two sentences and conveys the core method of invocation. It could be more informative without becoming verbose, but it earns its place as a brief reference.

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 is a mutation operation with multiple parameter categories (path, query, body), but the description omits essential details such as the required directoryID, accepted body fields, and any side effects. There is an output schema, but return value documentation is not needed; however, the input contract is severely under-specified for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 0% coverage with a single generic 'arguments' object. The description attempts to compensate by stating that path variables, query values, and body go into specific sub-properties, but it does not list the actual parameter names (e.g., directoryID) or the body fields. This leaves the agent without the information needed to construct a valid 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 clearly identifies the operation as a PATCH to a specific endpoint, which implies updating an existing scan directory. The resource is specific (dir-scan/directories/{directoryID}), and the name aligns with the action. However, it does not summarize the tool's purpose in plain language, relying on the endpoint definition to convey meaning.

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 like qui_create_scan_directory or qui_update_dir_scan_settings. It only explains how to pass arguments, which is more about parameter semantics than usage context. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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