qbittorrent_torrents_reannounce

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 mutating but non-destructive action. The description adds the specific behavior (reannounce to trackers) and the hashes format, but doesn't disclose any further side effects, prerequisites (e.g., torrent must be active), or network implications. This is adequate but not rich.

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 entire description is one concise sentence containing both the purpose and the critical parameter format. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational detail (reannounce action and hashes format). It doesn't explain the return value or edge cases, but the output schema likely covers that. The main gap is lack of explicit usage guidance, but this is minor for such a straightforward action.

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 only defines a string 'hashes' with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clearly specifying the valid format: pipe-separated hashes or the literal 'all'. This provides essential semantic meaning that the schema lacks.

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+resource combination: 'Reannounce torrents to their trackers.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling actions like pause, resume, delete, and recheck. It states the exact operation and target resource.

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 context is clear: this tool is for reannouncing torrents, and no other sibling provides this specific operation. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but it provides a direct usage context with the hashes parameter format. The absence of exclusions keeps it at a 4 rather than 5.

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