qui_set_torrent_file_priority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'PUT', implying mutation, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or potential failure modes. The description is purely mechanical ('Call endpoint') and offers no behavior beyond the HTTP verb.

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 very concise (two sentences), front-loads the endpoint, and avoids fluff. It loses a point because the brevity comes at the expense of useful functional context, making it less effective than a slightly expanded version would be.

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 opaque schema, lack of annotations, and no explanation of operation semantics, the description is insufficient. It does not mention what priorityes are, how to structure the body, or any constraints, leaving a significant knowledge gap for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these missing behavioral and parameter 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 schema is a free-form object with no property descriptions, so the description's instruction to pass path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body is valuable and adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the actual path variables, query parameters, or body fields, 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 states the HTTP method and endpoint path, which essentially mirrors the tool name. It fails to explicitly explain that the tool sets the priority of files in a torrent, relying on the name to convey purpose. Consequently, it does not distinguish itself from other torrent file operations beyond naming the endpoint.

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 versus alternatives such as qui_get_torrent_files or qui_rename_torrent_file. It provides no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusion criteria.

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