create_download_client

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that a new client is added and lists input fields; it does not mention whether creation triggers a connection test, what happens with duplicate names, whether the call is idempotent, or what the response contains. This is a significant gap for a mutating create operation.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the body-construction guidance is packed with directly actionable information. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is strong for input construction and references the correct schema endpoint, but it is incomplete given the lack of annotations and output schema. It does not cover behavioral outcomes such as whether the client is tested after creation, how errors or conflicts are handled, or what the return value represents. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema only exposes an opaque 'config' object with additionalProperties allowed, so the description provides the essential internal structure. It explicitly enumerates the required properties such as name, implementation, configContract, fields array, and optional settings like enable, protocol, priority, and removal flags, which is far beyond what the schema offers.

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 action and resource, 'Add a new download client,' which clearly distinguishes it from update, delete, list, get, and test siblings. It also references the schema tool that should be used to build the payload, further grounding its purpose.

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 tells the agent to build the body from get_download_client_schema, which provides clear guidance for the creation workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name update_download_client as the alternative for existing clients, but the context is still clear from the sibling list and verb.

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