qbittorrent_rss_remove_item

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to add basic safety information. It adds the useful detail that both folders and feeds are removable, plus an example path, but it does not disclose what happens to the contents of a removed folder (e.g., whether all child feeds are deleted). This is beyond the annotation yet still limited, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 no wasted words, front-loading the verb 'Remove' and the object. The example is concise and adds value by illustrating the required path format.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no nested objects), the description is complete. The destructive nature is already annotated, and the output schema is present so the return value does not need explanation. The example makes the parameter format clear, covering all essential operational 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 has one parameter 'path' with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explaining that path refers to 'an RSS folder or feed' and provides a concrete example ("The Pirate Bay\Top100"), giving significant semantic meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource as 'an RSS folder or feed', which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qbittorrent_rss_add_folder, qbittorrent_rss_move_item, and qbittorrent_rss_refresh_item. The example 'The Pirate Bay\Top100' further clarifies the intended scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that the agent can infer it is for deletion, distinct from other RSS operations. Usage is implied rather than stated, so it falls at 'implied usage'.

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