qbittorrent_torrents_bottom_priority

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is known to be non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the specific behavioral effect of moving torrents to the bottom of the queue, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose details like reversibility, impact on priority order, or conditions under which the operation might fail.

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 a single sentence that leads with the action and then mentions the parameter format. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words or filler. Every word serves a purpose.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. The description covers the core action and parameter syntax. However, it lacks context about queue ordering mechanics, such as when this operation is applicable (e.g., whether queueing must be enabled) or how 'all' interacts with the queue. For a basic operation, this is adequate but with clear 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?

The input schema only provides the parameter type (string) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by clearly explaining the parameter format: 'hashes is pipe-separated or "all".' This gives the agent the necessary information to construct valid inputs, though it does not provide examples or additional formatting details.

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: 'Move torrents to the bottom of the queue.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and directly distinguishes from sibling tools like top_priority, increase_priority, and decrease_priority. It is unambiguous and easy to understand.

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 when to use this tool: when you want to move torrents to the bottom of the queue. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. For example, it does not clarify when to use bottom_priority versus decrease_priority, but the action itself is clear enough to infer proper usage.

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