install_campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the full pipeline side effects (dependency parsing, disk write, dedup list update) and the matching behavior (unique high-confidence match auto-downloads, multiple candidates returned for confirmation). It does not discuss all edge behaviors like force/blacklist or async handling, but those are covered in schema parameter descriptions.

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 compact and well-structured, with a pipeline summary followed by bullet-point clarifications for the two key parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting makes the workflow and input rules easy to scan.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, output schema present), the description provides a strong high-level overview of the workflow and input requirements. It does not explain the return structure, but the output schema covers that. It also relies on schema parameter descriptions for strict/async/force behavior, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: workshop_id may be a numeric ID or a Steamcommunity link (auto-extracted), and title triggers a multi-stage internal resolution chain with candidate confirmation. This goes beyond the raw schema fields.

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 clearly states the tool performs a one-stop download pipeline: identify, resolve dependencies, download, save, and update the dedup list. It explicitly names the supported input forms (workshop_id, Steam link, map title) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_download_job and resolve_map by focusing on the full download workflow.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the user provides a workshop_id, Steam link, or map name for download. It also gives the key prerequisite that at least one of workshop_id or title must be provided, and explains the resolution behavior for titles. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and actionable.

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