verify_torrents

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly does not contradict them. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond annotations by warning that 'Verification restarts the torrent's progress from zero while it runs,' which is a non-obvious side effect an agent should know before invoking.

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 minimal and well-structured: purpose first, behavioral warning second, parameter documentation last. Every sentence is informative and none of the content is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Given that this is a single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: what the operation does, its notable side effect, and the parameter semantics. No critical information is missing for correct selection or 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the full semantic burden for the ids parameter. It does so effectively: 'Torrent ids or hash strings. Omit for every torrent' explains accepted value types and the default behavior of targeting all torrents, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource: 'Re-check torrent data against its hashes.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling state-changing tools like start_torrents or remove_torrent, while also clarifying that verification is an integrity check rather than a network re-announce.

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 purpose is clear enough to imply when verification would be appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not name any sibling or state conditions like 'use when you suspect data corruption.' The 'Omit for every torrent' note is parameter-oriented, not tool-selection guidance.

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