start_torrents_now

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

Annotations already disclose idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the queue-jumping behavior, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether queue order is permanently altered) or the response format. Given annotations cover safety and idempotency, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: a clear headline action followed by a structured Args section. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff. Every sentence contributes value.

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 optional parameter, the description covers the main behavior and the parameter usage. The output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable. It could mention error cases or consequences of queue jumping, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, it is largely complete.

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 must compensate. It does: 'ids: Torrent ids or hash strings. Omit for every torrent.' This clarifies the parameter type and meaning more than the raw schema (which only lists anyOf with no titles or descriptions). However, it does not specify exact formats (e.g., whether IDs are integers or what hash format) or behavior when both torrent IDs and hashes are mixed. It adds baseline meaning but not depth.

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 a clear action: 'Start torrents immediately, jumping the download queue.' This specifies the verb (start), the resource (torrents), and a distinguishing behavior (queue jumping) that separates it from the sibling start_torrents. An agent can immediately infer what makes this tool unique.

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 the sibling start_torrents or other queue-related tools like queue_move_top. It does not mention prerequisites, situations where it should be preferred, or when to avoid it. The only implicit hint is 'jumping the download queue,' but no explicit direction is given.

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