suwayomi_download_chapters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the effects of unread_only and chapter_ids, including the override behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether downloads are asynchronous, or any prerequisites such as authentication or existing library membership.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean Args list. Every sentence adds necessary information without repetition or filler.

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 the output schema exists and the parameter semantics are fully covered, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit context about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, but the operation itself is well-specified.

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, and it does. Every parameter is explained with meaningful semantics: manga_id identifies the manga, count sets the number, unread_only filters to unread/undownloaded chapters, and chapter_ids explicitly overrides the other selection parameters.

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 ('Queue and trigger') and resource ('chapter downloads for a manga'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools, which focus on status, library retrieval, and search/add operations.

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 the tool is used to initiate chapter downloads, and the parameter behavior clarifies selection logic, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide exclusion conditions. The usage context is inferable rather than stated.

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