qbittorrent_torrents_add_peers

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Add' is consistent (a non-destructive mutation). The description adds context about special values like 'all' for hashes, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as idempotency or error handling. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. It efficiently conveys all necessary parameter semantics.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter formats, but omits details about possible errors, idempotency, or the nature of the response. However, the output schema may cover return values, and the simplicity of the tool reduces the need for more.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description is the only source of meaning. It clearly explains that 'hashes' is pipe-separated or 'all' and that 'peers' is a pipe-separated list of host:port values, which is essential for correct usage.

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 ('Add peers') and the target resource ('torrents'), using a specific verb. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like qbittorrent_transfer_ban_peers, which serves a different purpose.

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 by explaining what the tool does and the parameter formats, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives nor any exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that this is appropriate over transfer_ban_peers for adding rather than banning peers.

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