post_downloads_feeds_feed_id_items_item_id_download

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action (enqueue) and lists error codes, which helps with troubleshooting. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, success behavior, or reversibility. It adds some value but is incomplete.

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: one sentence stating the purpose followed by error codes. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separate sections for behavior and errors), but overall it is not verbose.

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 simple tool (enqueue an item from a feed), the description is somewhat complete. It lacks details on success response, preconditions (e.g., feed must exist), and any side effects. The error codes help but do not cover all missing aspects. Without output schema or annotations, more context would be beneficial.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what feed_id and item_id represent beyond the tool name and context. The agent must infer their meaning from the name 'RSS item' and URLs. This adds minimal value over the parameter names.

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 action: 'enqueue the RSS item to the download list'. It specifies the verb 'enqueue' and the resource 'RSS item', and the target 'download list'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_downloads_add (adds generic download) and get_downloads_feeds_feed_id_items (lists items).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does and lists error codes. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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