nzbget_append

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., if the NZB is invalid). It mentions adding to a queue but doesn't explain queue behavior or side effects.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or the tool's role in the broader NZBGet system, making it inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'filename', 'content', 'category', 'priority', 'addToTop', or 'addPaused' mean, leaving all 6 parameters undocumented beyond their types in 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?

The description 'Add NZB to queue' states the action (add) and resource (NZB), but is vague about what 'NZB' refers to (likely a file format for Usenet downloads) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'nzbget_edit_queue' or 'nzbget_scan'. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nzbget_edit_queue' for modifying existing items or 'nzbget_scan' for scanning. The description implies usage for adding items but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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