qbittorrent_torrents_add

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation without destructive side effects. The description adds useful input details (e.g., URL formats, base64 encoding) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether added torrents start downloading immediately, or any side effects. This is adequate but not rich, hence a mid-range score.

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 succinct and front-loaded with 'Add torrents'. It efficiently explains the two primary input methods and then lists optional parameters without redundant schema information. Every sentence contributes to understanding how to invoke the tool, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With 16 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers the core inputs and some parameter units, but lacks explanations for several potentially ambiguous options like root_folder, auto_tmm, and skip_checking. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the incomplete parameter semantics leave contextual 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names all 16 parameters and provides meaningful details for urls (formats, newline-separated), torrent_b64 (base64), tags (comma-separated), up_limit/dl_limit (bytes/s), ratio_limit, and seeding_time_limit (minutes). However, it only lists many other parameters without explaining their semantics (e.g., root_folder, auto_tmm, skip_checking), leaving ambiguity. This is a partial compensation.

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 starts with 'Add torrents', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like qbittorrent_torrents_list, qbittorrent_torrents_pause, and qbittorrent_torrents_add_trackers, as it is the only tool focused on adding new torrents. The mention of URLs and .torrent files further clarifies its specific function.

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 provides clear context on how to use the tool by explaining the two main input methods (urls or torrent_b64) and the optional settings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, though the naming and description make the distinction from siblings straightforward.

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