qui_torrent_bulk_action

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

The annotation provides destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose which specific operations are supported, whether they are irreversible, or what side effects might occur (e.g., mass deletion). The description thus adds minimal value beyond the annotation and leaves the tool's behavior opaque.

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 concise and front-loaded with the endpoint path and argument structure. It contains no filler, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name and could be tightened. Still, it earns its place by providing endpoint context.

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 having an output schema and annotation, the description lacks essential functional context. It does not explain what the bulk action endpoint does, which operations are included, or when to choose this generic tool over specialized ones. An agent could not determine appropriate usage without external knowledge.

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 single free-form 'arguments' object with 0% schema coverage, but the description explicitly specifies the argument structure: path variables directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and a JSON body in arguments.body. This directly compensates for the schema gap and gives the agent the exact mapping needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 merely states to call the endpoint, which is a restatement of the tool name and resource. It does not explain what a 'bulk action' does functionally (e.g., delete, pause, reannounce multiple torrents), so it fails to distinguish the tool's purpose from specialized siblings like qui_ban_peers or qui_rename_torrent.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. It only explains argument passing mechanics (path vs query vs body) and does not discuss scenarios, exclusions, or trade-offs relative to individual torrent operation tools.

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