Tracked mods

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds action-level read/write distinction plus the NEXUS_ALLOW_WRITES=true gating requirement. It stops short of rate limits or per-write side effects, but meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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 tool purpose and then action semantics. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With annotations covering safety hints and the schema covering parameters, the description supplies action semantics and the write gate. It omits return details (no output schema exists) and sibling routing, but is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 67%; mod_id and game_domain_name already have schema descriptions. The description adds semantics for the action enum (which values are read vs write), which is useful, but does not add further parameter detail beyond the schema.

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?

States the verb (manage) and specific resource (mods tracked by the authenticated user), and enumerates action values. The scope is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like nexus_endorse_mod or nexus_list_mods.

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?

Provides action-level guidance: list is read-only; track/untrack are writes requiring NEXUS_ALLOW_WRITES=true. However, it gives no alternatives or when-not conditions, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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