qui_rename_torrent_folder

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only explains how to structure arguments (top-level path variables, arguments.params for query, arguments.body for JSON body). It does not describe side effects, such as whether files are moved on disk, whether the torrent must be paused, or what API errors may occur. The PUT method implies mutation, but that's not explicit.

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?

Two sentences, each with a clear purpose: the first names the endpoint, the second explains the argument mapping. No wasted words, front-loaded with the action. Perfectly sized for the information it provides.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description omits critical context: what the new folder path should be, whether the operation is reversible, side effects on trackers/peers, and when to use this tool relative to similar rename operations. With no annotations and a bare schema, this description is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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 a generic 'arguments' object with no defined properties (0% coverage), so the description's structural convention is valuable: path variables go at top level, query values under arguments.params, and the request body under arguments.body. However, it doesn't enumerate the actual parameters (instanceID, hash, body fields like newPath), leaving the agent with only a template, not a full specification.

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 precise REST endpoint (PUT /instances/{instanceID}/torrents/{hash}/rename-folder), which clearly implies the action of renaming a torrent folder. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_rename_torrent and qui_rename_torrent_file by resource type. However, it frames purpose as an API call rather than a plain-language functional description.

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 like qui_rename_torrent or qui_rename_torrent_file. It doesn't mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection context from the endpoint name alone.

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