qui_remove_torrent_trackers

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

The annotation already marks this as destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, including the HTTP DELETE method and the instruction to pass path variables, but no details on effects or irreversibility. It doesn't contradict the annotation.

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 concise at two sentences, with the most important information (endpoint and purpose) first. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 destructiveness and the need to specify instance ID, torrent hash, and tracker list, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention what the request body should contain, doesn't give an example, and relies on the annotation for destructive awareness. The generic arguments schema with no property definitions leaves the agent with insufficient guidance to construct a valid call, even though an output schema exists.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage) and only a generic 'arguments' object. The description compensates by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and body in arguments.body. However, it doesn't specify the actual path variable names (instanceID, hash) or the expected body structure for the trackers to be removed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as calling the DELETE endpoint for removing trackers from a torrent, with the path structure exposed. The verb 'DELETE' and the name 'remove_torrent_trackers' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like add or edit trackers.

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 doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes the API call mechanics. There is no mention of situations where removal is appropriate or alternative tools like qui_edit_torrent_tracker for modifying trackers. The usage is implied by the name and endpoint.

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