qbittorrent_transfer_ban_peers

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint false) and not destructive. The description adds only input format, not behavioral traits such as whether the ban is temporary, affects current connections, or is global versus per-torrent. This is sparse beyond what annotations already provide.

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 sentences: one succinct statement of purpose and one example. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one required parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the parameter format but omits context about the scope of the ban (e.g., global vs per-torrent) and the effect on existing connections. This is a clear gap, but the simplicity of the tool keeps it at a baseline.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the 'peers' parameter format (one or more host:port separated by pipe) with an example. This is sufficient for a single parameter, though it doesn't clarify edge cases like IPv6 or port ranges.

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 ('Ban peers') and the resource (peers as host:port values). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like qbittorrent_torrents_add_peers, as no other tool performs banning. The format example adds further clarity.

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 implies usage (ban unwanted peers) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does give the format required, which helps in usage, but lacks explicit contextual guidance.

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