ytptube_add_downloads

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or queue behavior, but it is consistent with the annotations. Score 3.

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 a single sentence of nine words, with the key verb and object placed first. It contains no superfluous content or repetition of schema details. Score 5.

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?

Despite the tool's relatively complex input schema (single object vs array, numerous optional fields), the description provides only a surface-level summary and does not address usage scenarios, field meanings, or expected behavior. Given no output schema and no field descriptions, the agent lacks sufficient guidance to correctly construct a valid request for anything beyond a simple URL addition. Score 2.

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%, and the description only says 'one or more URLs,' which offers minimal interpretation of the required 'items' parameter. It omits any explanation of the many optional settings (folder, preset, cookies, template, auto_start, extras) that appear in the schema, leaving significant semantic gaps. Score 2.

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 a specific action ('Add') and resource ('URLs to the download queue'), giving a direct indication of the tool's core function. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like ytptube_create_tasks or ytptube_queue_control, so its uniqueness isn't established. Score 4.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_tasks or update_task. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context indicating which scenarios call for this tool over others are provided. Score 2.

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