start_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 states the action ('start (resume)') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this requires authentication, what happens if the torrent is already running, whether it's idempotent, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 extremely concise—a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource, 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 (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and constraints, making it just sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 parameter information beyond what the schema provides (a single 'torrent_id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage). Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to explain what 'torrent_id' represents (e.g., a hash, name, or identifier) or where to obtain it, slightly reducing clarity.

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 action ('start (resume)') and resource ('a torrent'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pause_torrent' and 'stop_torrent' by specifying the starting/resuming action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., torrent must be paused or stopped), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'resume_torrent' (if it existed), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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