Add a Torrent

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds 'Reversible' and 'configured client RPC', which provides some extra context but does not go into depth about side effects, errors, or prerequisites. This meets the baseline for adding some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 gets straight to the point. It uses no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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 tool's low complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core action and source, and notes reversibility. However, it omits any explanation of the 'paused' parameter, which is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 has two parameters (paused, magnetOrUrl) with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the magnetOrUrl parameter by stating it accepts a magnet or HTTP(S) URL, but it does not mention the 'paused' parameter at all. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation, this partial coverage is insufficient.

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 states the action (add a torrent), the source (bounded magnet or HTTP(S) URL), and the mechanism (configured client RPC). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whatbox_torrent_remove and whatbox_torrent_control, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to add a torrent via magnet or HTTP(S) URL. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that the usage context is unambiguous. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than explicit when/when-not guidance.

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