queue_move_down

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

The description states 'Move torrents one place down,' implying each invocation changes the queue position. This contradicts the annotation idempotentHint: true, which suggests repeated calls have no additional effect. No other behavioral context (e.g., what happens at the bottom) is provided, and the description carries the full burden since annotations are limited. This is an annotation contradiction.

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: two sentences, with the action front-loaded and the parameter explanation given in a compact 'Args' section. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential information needed to invoke it: what it does and what the parameter means. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., behavior at queue bounds), but these are rarely critical for a single-step move. Overall, it is complete enough for most agent use cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains that 'ids' are 'Torrent ids or hash strings.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema definition (array/string/integer) and is essential for correct usage. It does not, however, clarify format or constraints (e.g., whether duplicates are allowed), but it is a solid compensation for the lack of schema metadata.

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 ('Move torrents') and scope ('one place down the queue'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like queue_move_top, queue_move_up, and queue_move_bottom. No ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The name and description imply a single step downward, but the description does not mention that jumping to top/bottom requires other tools, nor does it address how to perform multiple moves. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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