qui_update_torznab_search_cache_settings

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the argument structure (path vars, query, body), which is a form of invocation behavior, but it does not disclose side effects, security requirements, overwriting semantics, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the endpoint and concisely explains the argument mapping. Every part is necessary and there is no wasted text. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward REST wrapper.

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 the tool having an output schema, the description lacks critical context about what fields are updatable, whether the update is partial or full, and what the expected request body structure is. The generic instruction to put a JSON body in arguments.body is incomplete without knowing the schema of that body. The description is too minimal for a tool with a complex real-world use case.

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 no properties, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates by specifying that path variables go directly in arguments, query values go in arguments.params, and the JSON body goes in arguments.body. This is essential guidance, but it lacks the actual parameter names, required fields, and formats, so it only partially helps.

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 essentially restates the tool name by saying 'Call qui's PUT /torznab/search/cache/settings endpoint.' It doesn't explain what updating the Torznab search cache settings actually does or what effect it has. While it adds the HTTP method and path, it provides no meaningful purpose beyond the name itself.

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. Sibling tools like qui_get_torznab_search_cache clearly relate to reading vs. updating, but the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left without any decision framework.

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