qui_run_cross_seed_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggering a background job, needing an active instance, or potential changes to torrents). It only states the HTTP method and endpoint, leaving behavioral implications unaddressed.

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 distinct purpose: first identifies the endpoint, second explains parameter placement. No wasted words.

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?

Though an output schema exists, the description omits what response to expect and doesn't mention follow-up actions like polling status via qui_get_cross_seed_async_status. Given this is a run/action tool with nested parameter structure, more context is needed for 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 schema's single 'arguments' parameter is opaque, but the description provides a clear convention for mapping path variables, query values, and body content. This compensates for the schema's 0% coverage, though it doesn't enumerate the specific variables expected for this endpoint.

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 endpoint and action (run), distinguishing it from sibling tools like qui_cancel_cross_seed_automation and qui_list_cross_seed_runs. However, it lacks a plain-language explanation of what running the automation does, relying on the tool name for meaning.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as qui_get_cross_seed_status or qui_cross_seed_apply. The description only explains parameter passing, not the appropriate context or prerequisites.

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