qui_update_torznab_indexer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, whether the update is destructive/overwriting, permission requirements, or any other behavioral context. The description only explains the argument-passing convention, leaving behavioral traits completely unspecified.

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 that provides the essential calling protocol without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the endpoint context and immediately tells the agent how to structure arguments, making it extremely efficient.

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, the description is incomplete for a complex update operation. It lacks any explanation of what the endpoint does semantically, required path parameters, expected body fields, or conditions for use. The sparse generic schema and lack of annotations heighten the need for more detail, but the description only covers argument structure, leaving significant gaps.

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 0% coverage, so the description adds crucial structure: it explains that path variables go directly in arguments, query values go in arguments.params, and the request body goes in arguments.body. This compensates significantly for the schema's lack of detail, though it does not enumerate the actual fields (e.g., indexerID, body properties).

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 clearly states the specific endpoint and HTTP method (PUT /torznab/indexers/{indexerID}), which distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools (create, get, delete, test, sync). However, it relies on the tool name and endpoint path to convey the semantic 'update' action rather than explicitly stating it in user-friendly terms.

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?

Usage is implied by the PUT method and tool name, indicating it modifies an existing Torznab indexer. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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