forget_torrent

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 effectively describes a key behavioral trait: 'keeping the files,' which clarifies that this is a non-destructive operation regarding file data. However, it doesn't mention other potential behaviors like permissions needed, side effects, or error conditions.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Forget a torrent, keeping the files') with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and immediately conveys the purpose and a critical behavioral detail.

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 moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the purpose and a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and other behavioral aspects like error handling, which the output schema might not fully cover.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general action. It doesn't explain what 'torrent_id' represents or its format. Since schema coverage is low, the description doesn't compensate, resulting in minimal added value.

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 action ('Forget a torrent') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying that files are kept, unlike 'delete_torrent' or 'remove_torrent' which likely remove files. It uses a precise verb ('forget') with the resource ('torrent') and includes a key behavioral detail.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Forget a torrent, keeping the files') and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like 'delete_torrent' or 'remove_torrent' by highlighting the file retention. This provides clear context for choosing this tool over siblings that might remove files.

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