qbittorrent_rss_set_rule

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it is auto-downloading and lists rule_def keys, but does not disclose deeper behavioral details like what happens on replace or potential side effects beyond the annotations.

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 compact and starts with the primary purpose, followed by a key list and a concrete example. The structure is efficient, though the key list could be broken out for readability, it earns a high score for not over-explaining.

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 has an output schema (not shown) and annotations, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose, input keys, and an example, but lacks detailed parameter semantics and usage alternatives, making it only moderately complete for a complex rule-definition tool.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the burden. It lists all rule_def keys and provides an example showing types, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the semantics of each key (e.g., smartFilter, ignoreDays), leaving ambiguity for less obvious parameters.

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 tool creates or replaces an auto-downloading RSS rule, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like qbittorrent_rss_rename_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 description clearly indicates this tool is for creating or replacing rules, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among related RSS rule tools.

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