qui_ban_peers

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

With no annotations, the description is expected to disclose behavior. It only states it calls a POST endpoint without explaining the effect (e.g., peers are banned, possibly irreversibly), any security requirements, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

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 two short sentences that efficiently convey the endpoint and argument structure without redundant details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete: it does not provide the required path variable names, the body structure, or the operational context. An agent would not be able to confidently construct a valid request from this description alone.

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 has a single free-form 'arguments' property with no specific fields. The description adds value by explaining that path variables go in arguments directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. However, it does not enumerate the specific path variables (e.g., instanceID) or body fields, leaving the agent to guess.

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 identifies the exact endpoint and HTTP method, and the resource 'ban-peers' clearly matches the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling 'qui_add_peers' by naming the specific endpoint, but does not explicitly describe the action of banning peers beyond the route.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_add_peers or qui_remove_torrent_trackers. It only explains how to structure arguments, not the appropriate use case or context.

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