qbittorrent_rss_add_folder

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds no substantive behavioral detail beyond these annotations—no mention of error handling, idempotency, duplicate folder behavior, or whether parent folders are auto-created. The example path only addresses parameter format, not tool behavior.

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 sentence with a helpful example. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded verb 'Create' immediately communicates the action. No unnecessary detail.

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 straightforward write tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description plus annotations cover the basics needed to invoke it. However, it lacks edge-case details like behavior on duplicate paths or whether the path is relative to a root, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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?

Although the input schema provides zero description of the 'path' parameter (0% coverage), the description compensates with a concrete example ('The Pirate Bay\Top100') that illustrates the expected hierarchical path format. This gives an agent the key semantic insight that nested folder paths are supported, which the bare schema does not.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('RSS folder'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like qbittorrent_rss_add_feed (which creates feeds) and qbittorrent_rss_remove_item (which removes items). The example path 'The Pirate Bay\Top100' further clarifies the hierarchical nature.

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 implies usage when an RSS folder needs to be created, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like qbittorrent_rss_add_feed or qbittorrent_rss_move_item. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the simple action makes the context reasonably clear.

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