Verify Torrent Data

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

The description discloses key behaviors: verification runs in background, returns confirmation immediately, errors if IDs don't exist. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with the description. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (usage, args, returns, examples, error handling). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value ('Confirmation that verification has been started') and directs the agent to check torrent status for results. All necessary information is present.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context: explains 'ids' can be number, array, or 'all', and shows examples. Also explains the default for response_format. The description complements the schema well.

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 tool's purpose: 'Verify the integrity of downloaded torrent data' and 'triggers a verification check of torrent files against their checksums'. It is distinct from sibling tools like transmission_get_torrent (which shows status) or transmission_resume_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?

Explicit usage guidelines: 'Use this to ensure downloaded data is correct and complete, or to recheck files after moving them.' Examples are provided. However, it could explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for checking status) but that is implicit from context.

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