qui_create_torrent

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the HTTP method (POST) but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is asynchronous. The tool likely creates a torrent creation task, but this is not stated.

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 contains the essential endpoint information and argument-passing convention. It is concise and structurally straightforward, though it could be improved by adding a purpose statement and parameter details without becoming verbose.

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 description lacks business context and prerequisites. Given that the tool performs a create operation, it should explain what it creates (a torrent creation task?), what inputs are required, and what the output represents. The existence of an output schema helps but is not shown to the agent, so the description must carry more weight.

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 nearly empty (only an 'arguments' object with additionalProperties true), and schema coverage is 0%. The description explains the general structure (path variables in arguments, query values in arguments.params, body in arguments.body), but it does not specify the actual path variables, query parameters, or body fields needed for this endpoint. This is a generic pattern, not tool-specific semantics.

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 HTTP endpoint and method for the tool. Although it doesn't explicitly state 'creates a torrent,' the tool name and endpoint path clearly imply this, distinguishing it from sibling tools. It lacks a plain-language statement of the tool's purpose, but the technical directive is specific.

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 versus alternatives such as qui_get_torrent_creation_status or qui_delete_torrent_creation_task. The description only gives low-level invocation instructions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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