qbittorrent_rss_add_feed

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

Annotations already declare it as a write operation that is not destructive. The description adds that the feed is added by URL and optionally into a folder path, but it does not disclose behaviors such as duplicate handling, path creation, or validation errors. Some behavioral context is present, but it is minimal.

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 front-loads the action and packs all essential information without unnecessary words. It is highly efficient and easily scannable.

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?

For a simple two-parameter operation, the description gives the core functionality. Missing is an explanation of whether the 'path' must already exist and what happens with invalid feeds. Given the output schema and simple nature, it is minimally complete but has clear gaps.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description references both parameters ('by URL' and 'into a folder path'), providing basic semantic context. However, it does not specify path format, existence requirements, or edge cases, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource 'RSS feed by URL', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like adding folders or removing items. It clearly states the action and the resource type.

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 phrase 'Add an RSS feed' explicitly states the context for using this tool. It does not discuss alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous, so an agent can easily choose this tool when needing to subscribe to a feed.

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