qbittorrent_torrents_decrease_priority

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 operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the core action, such as reversibility or handling of invalid hashes. The mention of 'all' is more about parameter semantics than behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains the parameter format. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, no nested objects, and an output schema present—the description is sufficient. It covers what the tool does and how to specify target torrents. Minor omissions like edge-case behavior when torrents are already at minimum priority are not critical for this simple operation.

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 provides no description for the 'hashes' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains that hashes can be pipe-separated or the literal 'all', which is essential for correct invocation. While it does not define what a torrent hash is or address case sensitivity, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description explicitly states the action 'Decrease queue priority' and the resource 'torrents', making the purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like increase_priority, top_priority, and bottom_priority. The verb+resource combination is specific and 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?

The description implies usage by stating the action, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that bottom_priority is for moving torrents to the very bottom, nor does it warn about behavior when torrents are already at the lowest priority. The sibling names provide some context, but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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