set_bandwidth_group

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

Annotations already establish idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description adds the key behavioral nuance that an unknown name is created rather than rejected. It also explains that the tool can both create and modify groups, going slightly beyond the schema and annotations.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact, uniform list of parameter descriptions. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema type information.

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 six-parameter upsert tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and all parameter meanings. It leaves minor gaps such as the effect on existing groups when optional fields are omitted, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 Args section documents all six parameters with meaningful descriptions, including units (kB/s), enabling semantics, and the meaning of honors_session_limits. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair, 'Create or change a bandwidth group,' which clearly identifies the action and target. This differentiates it from read-only siblings like get_bandwidth_groups and from other setter tools that target sessions or torrents.

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?

'Create or change' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, and the note that a name that does not exist yet is created clarifies the create-vs-update behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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