reannounce_torrent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, affects torrent status, has side effects, or involves network communication. This leaves critical operational details unclear.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it lacks depth for understanding the tool's full behavior and context within the sibling set.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage and only documents 'torrent_id' as a required string. With one parameter and no schema details, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to explain what 'torrent_id' represents or its format, missing an opportunity to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states the action ('reannounce') and target ('torrent to trackers'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'start_torrent' or 'verify_torrent', leaving ambiguity about when reannouncing versus other torrent actions is appropriate.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'start_torrent', 'pause_torrent', and 'verify_torrent', the description lacks context for choosing reannouncement over other torrent management actions.

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