qbittorrent_torrents_recheck

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutation that is not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that. There is no mention of side effects, resource impact, or what happens to the torrents during recheck.

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 two short sentences with no redundant wording. Every word adds value, explaining both the action and the parameter 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?

The description is minimal but covers the essential parameter semantics. However, it lacks context about when to use the tool, prerequisites, or what a recheck actually triggers. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description is still sparse for a tool that changes torrent state.

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 hashes as a string, but the description clarifies the format: pipe-separated values or the special value 'all'. This is critical information that the schema does not provide, making it a valuable addition.

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 'Force recheck of torrents' with a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools such as reannounce or pause, and the action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qbittorrent_torrents_reannounce or qbittorrent_torrents_list. The description only explains the parameter format, not the situational context.

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