qui_rename_torrent

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only explains how to structure arguments (path vs query vs body) but says nothing about what the action does, whether it is destructive, what side effects occur, or how success/failure is indicated. The endpoint implies a rename but lacks detail.

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, so it is concise in word count, but it is under-specified and poorly structured. It fronts an API call instruction rather than a purpose statement, and it provides no hierarchical or semantic organization to aid comprehension.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description is grossly incomplete for a tool that mutates a resource. It doesn't state what the rename actually does, what arguments are required, or any edge cases. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without external API knowledge, making it inadequate in context.

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 is generic with no specific properties, so the description must compensate. It does provide a useful distinction between path variables, query values, and request body, which helps an agent structure the arguments. However, it doesn't describe what these parameters are (e.g., instanceID, hash, newName) or their meaning, leaving 0% schema coverage largely unaddressed.

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 only says 'Call qui's PUT /instances/{instanceID}/torrents/{hash}/rename endpoint' which is essentially a restatement of the tool name, not a clear statement of what the tool does. It fails to explicitly say 'Renames a torrent' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like qui_rename_torrent_file or qui_rename_torrent_folder.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools exist for renaming torrent files and folders, but the description doesn't mention them or provide decision criteria. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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