qui_add_torrent_trackers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only mentions how to pass arguments (path, query, body) and the HTTP method. It does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, what side effects occur, whether authentication is required, or what happens on success/failure. The POST method hints at mutation, but this is implicit rather than explicit.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the endpoint and packs in the parameter-passing convention. It avoids fluff and is easy to parse, though it may be under-specified. It's appropriately sized for a technical wrapper description.

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 a mutating operation with no annotations, a minimal schema, and an output schema that isn't described. The description doesn't explain what trackers are expected in the body, required fields, response format, or error conditions. For an agent to invoke this correctly, it would need more context about the request body and behavior. The endpoint URL provides some clues but is insufficient on its own.

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 is a free-form object with 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining how to structure arguments: path variables directly, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. This adds meaning to the generic 'arguments' parameter, but it doesn't specify the actual path variable names (though the endpoint reveals instanceID and hash) or the expected body fields, leaving significant gaps.

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 says to call the POST /instances/{instanceID}/torrents/{hash}/trackers endpoint, which implies adding trackers to a torrent but doesn't explicitly state the functional outcome. It's more of an HTTP call instruction than a plain-language description of what the tool does. It distinguishes the resource and verb but doesn't clearly say 'adds trackers to a torrent.'

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like qui_edit_torrent_tracker or qui_remove_torrent_trackers. The description is purely about making the API call and offers no context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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