qbittorrent_rss_rename_rule

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=false) indicate a mutation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic rename operation. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., impact on active auto-downloading), error conditions, or permission requirements.

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, six-word sentence that is maximally concise and immediately front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place.

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 rename tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks important context such as what happens if the original rule doesn't exist, whether the rename is reversible, or any constraints on the new name.

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 descriptions (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the parameters beyond their self-evident names (rule_name, new_rule_name). No details about uniqueness, case sensitivity, or formatting are provided.

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 ('Rename') and the resource ('auto-downloading rule'), making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like qbittorrent_rss_set_rule and qbittorrent_rss_remove_rule.

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 usage is implied by the purpose statement, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_rule for modifying other rule properties, remove_rule for deletion). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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