stop_torrents

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, is idempotent, and is not destructive, so the description does not need to restate those. It usefully adds that omitting ids stops every torrent, which is a globally-scoped behavior an agent should know. It does not describe side effects such as whether torrents remain available for restart, but this is adequately covered by the idempotency annotation.

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, with the core action front-loaded in the first line and a compact argument explanation. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and the important all-torrent fallback. It is slightly limited by not comparing itself to the closely related start_torrents or remove_torrent siblings, but the name and action make the intended context clear enough.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description carries the full burden for explaining the parameter. It clearly states that ids can be torrent ids or hash strings and that omitting the parameter stops all torrents, fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 specific verb, 'Stop', and resource, 'torrents', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also clarifies the scope of the operation ('every torrent' when ids are omitted), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_torrents or remove_torrent.

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 tool's purpose itself implies when to use it, and the description gives a concrete usage condition: omit ids to stop every torrent. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, such as preferring remove_torrent for deletion or start_torrents for resuming.

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