qui_cross_seed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details how arguments are formatted (behavioral for invocation) and lists HTTP methods (POST, DELETE, etc.), which implies side effects, but it does not explicitly state outcomes (e.g., 'this creates a blocklist entry' or 'this modifies settings') or safety considerations. The operation names hint at effects, but the description itself does not elaborate on consequences, auth needs, or reversibility.

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 front-loaded with the essential usage pattern and then lists all operations. Each line is a necessary mapping of operation to endpoint. It is efficient without redundancy, though the list is long. The structure is logical and skippable, making it concise for its purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (29 operations) and lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it explicitly maps every operation to an HTTP method and path, and explains the argument structure. Since an output schema exists, return values are not the description's responsibility. For a generic API dispatcher, no critical information is missing.

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% in the description, but it compensates by explaining the generic argument pattern: path variables go directly, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. This adds critical meaning not present in the schema (which just has an open object). It does not detail per-operation parameters, but for a generic dispatcher, the pattern is sufficient.

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 it as 'qui cross seed operations on qui' and enumerates 29 specific operations with HTTP endpoints. This precisely defines the tool's scope as a dispatcher for cross-seed API calls, distinguishing it from sibling tools like qui_torrents or qui_system.

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 clear usage context by explaining the argument structure (path variables go directly, query params in arguments.params, body in arguments.body) and maps each operation to an HTTP method. It implies use for cross-seed tasks, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it (e.g., 'use qui_torrents for torrent-specific actions'). Exclusions are missing, but context is strong.

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