qbittorrent_torrents_rename_file

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the path relativity constraint, which is helpful but does not disclose potential side effects, failure conditions, or permission requirements. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the added behavioral context is adequate but not rich.

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 is directly to the point, with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and includes a critical parenthetical clarification. Perfectly concise and well-structured.

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 rename operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and path semantics. Annotations mitigate concerns about destructive behavior. It lacks explicit mentions of error cases or prerequisites, but the complexity is low, and the existing structured fields fill several gaps. Overall, it is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that old_path and new_path are relative to the torrent root, which is essential semantical information. However, it does not explain the 'hash' parameter or the exact path conventions (e.g., separators, whether directories are allowed), leaving some parameter details under-specified.

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 ('Rename a file inside a torrent') and specifies the scope with 'relative paths from the torrent root'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool qbittorrent_torrents_rename_folder, which handles folder renames. 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 provides useful guidance on path formatting ('relative paths from the torrent root'), implying when this tool should be used (for files rather than folders). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like qbittorrent_torrents_rename_folder or state any conditions or exclusions, leaving usage context mostly implicit.

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