CivitAI Download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the side effect (download to models dir) and asynchrony via 'Queue', which is valuable. However, it omits details about authentication/token fallback, potential rate limits, or whether queued downloads can be monitored or cancelled—important behavioral traits for a network-triggering tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, includes the endpoint, and contains a practical tip about path resolution. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not mention how to check download status or cancel (despite sibling tools), auth prerequisites for protected models, or behavior on duplicate/conflicting files. The agent would be left guessing on many operational aspects.

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 only 31%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for url and model_id/version_id but provides no guidance for 9 other parameters like nsfw, token, filename, expected_hash, or version_name. The majority of the 13 parameters remain semantically unexplained.

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: 'Queue a model file download to the models dir'. It names the POST endpoint, clarifies that url is required, and indicates how model_id/version_id relate to search results. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like sdnext_civitai_legacy or sdnext_civitai_download_status.

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?

It gives clear context that downloads should be based on identifiers from search results and that url is mandatory. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the instruction 'use model_id/version_id from search results to resolve paths' strongly implies the prior step (search) and helps the agent decide when this tool fits.

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