rename_torrent_path

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful constraints about scope (one torrent at a time, current path relative to root, rename applies only to one path segment). It does not detail edge behavior such as failure if the target name already exists, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 short, front-loaded purpose statement followed by a clean Args block. Each line contributes meaningful information, and it is appropriately sized for a simple three-parameter tool. Minor redundancy exists (renaming is one torrent at a time), but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and all annotations supplied, the description covers all required parameters and the key operational constraints (one torrent at a time, relative path, single segment). It is complete enough for correct invocation; only broader edge-case behavior or comparative guidance is left unaddressed.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. The Args block provides precise, non-obvious semantics for all three parameters: id is a single torrent id or hash, path is relative to the torrent's own root, and name applies to only one path segment. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 first line, 'Rename a file or directory inside one torrent,' states a specific verb, resource, and scope. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like move_torrent_data, but it does not explicitly name any alternative or draw a contrast, so it misses the higher bar for explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you want to rename a file/directory in a torrent) and sets constraints (one torrent at a time, path relative to root). However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as move_torrent_data or set_torrent, so usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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