qui_sync_torznab_indexer_caps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is a POST call (mutation), but doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, whether it overwrites existing caps, or what the response contains. The word 'sync' hints at an update, but the consequences are not disclosed.

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 and stays on-topic, with the endpoint mentioned first. It is concise and doesn't waste words. Slightly dense, but all content is relevant. The structure is acceptable, though breaking into separate sentences might improve readability.

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 tool's complexity (free-form schema, no annotations, related sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention required path variable {indexerID} explicitly, nor what the sync entails, what happens on success/failure, or any prerequisites like an existing indexer. The output schema exists but the description doesn't hint at what the response contains.

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 nearly empty (only a free-form 'arguments' object with no property definitions), so the description's explanation of argument structure (path variables directly, query in arguments.params, body in arguments.body) adds value. However, it doesn't identify the required path variable (indexerID) by name or specify any expected query/body fields, leaving the agent partially blind.

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 a specific endpoint (POST /torznab/indexers/{indexerID}/caps/sync) and names the resource (caps sync), so it's more than a tautology. However, it only says 'call' the endpoint without explicitly stating what the operation does (e.g., 'Synchronize indexer capabilities from the remote service'). The purpose is implied from the endpoint path but not clearly spelled out.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like qui_get_torznab_indexer or qui_update_torznab_indexer. The only additional info is how to pass arguments (path, query, body), which is invocation mechanics rather than usage conditions. No context like prerequisites or when a sync is needed.

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