qui_rename_torrent_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it reveals no behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It merely provides the HTTP method and argument-passing pattern.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriately brief. However, it front-loads the HTTP endpoint rather than the tool's purpose, so while it is efficient, it is not optimally structured for an agent to quickly understand what the tool does.

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?

For a tool with a generic schema, no annotations, and a direct mutation operation, this description is insufficient. An agent cannot determine what parameters to provide or what the endpoint actually accomplishes. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input and behavioral details.

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 description adds some structure to the generic 'arguments' parameter by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and the body in arguments.body. However, it fails to name the specific path variables (e.g., instanceID, hash) or body fields needed for a rename-file operation, leaving critical parameter details ambiguous.

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 underlying endpoint but does not clearly state that the tool renames a file within a torrent. It uses the verb 'Call' which is generic, and the resource is only implied by the endpoint path. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like qui_rename_torrent 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains how to structure arguments, not the intended use case, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools with similar names are not mentioned.

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