Upload targets of a mod

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real operational context beyond that, namely that include_versions costs 'one extra call per file' and that refresh bypasses the cache right after an upload. These cost/caching disclosures are exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the imperative 'START HERE before updating a mod'. The return shape and the downstream hand-off are both delivered in the same breath without repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (internal mod id, per-file mod_file_id, latest versions). Combined with the workflow positioning and the cache/call-cost notes, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and use its result.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including defaults for game_domain_name, include_versions and versions_per_file) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the mod_id-is-in-the-URL hint and explains what to do with the returned mod_file_id, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema itself.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('lists the v3 identifiers needed to publish') and enumerates exactly what is returned: the internal mod id, every mod file, its mod_file_id and latest versions. It differentiates itself functionally from sibling file-listing tools by framing the result as upload targets, but it never names a sibling it should not be confused with (e.g. nexus_get_mod_files), so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

'START HERE before updating a mod' gives an explicit entry point in the publish workflow, and the description routes the agent downstream ('Pass the mod_file_id to nexus_upload_mod_file...; omit it to create a brand new file'). It never states when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to prefer for a plain file listing, so no exclusion guidance is present.

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