qbittorrent_torrents_increase_priority

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds the special 'all' and pipe-separated format, but does not disclose side effects like behavior at max priority or whether priority changes are reversible. This is partial additional context beyond 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the purpose and parameter format efficiently.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, target, and parameter format. It does not document return values or edge cases, but these are largely covered by the output schema and the annotations. Minor gaps around 'all' semantics prevent a perfect score.

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 explains that 'hashes' is pipe-separated or 'all', which provides essential format and allowed values. This exceeds the bare schema but lacks examples or constraints about empty strings or case sensitivity.

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 uses a specific verb 'increase' with a clear resource 'queue priority of torrents', distinguishing it from sibling tools like decrease_priority, top_priority, and bottom_priority. 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you want to raise a torrent's priority), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like top_priority or mention that it increments by one step. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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