nzbget_edit_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explain what 'edit' means operationally—such as whether it modifies, deletes, or reorders items; if it requires specific permissions; or what side effects occur. This lack of detail makes the tool's behavior opaque and risky for an agent to invoke.

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 extremely concise with just three words, but this brevity leads to under-specification rather than efficiency. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail, making it inadequate despite its minimal length. It earns a baseline score for being short but fails to provide useful information.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the agent without essential information on purpose, usage, behavior, or parameters, making the tool effectively unusable in context.

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%, meaning parameters (command, ids, param) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain what these parameters represent, their expected values, or how they interact. For a tool with three parameters, this is a critical gap in understanding.

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 'Edit queue items' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'nzbget_edit_queue'. While it specifies the resource ('queue items'), it lacks a specific verb or details about what editing entails, making the purpose vague and indistinguishable from potential sibling operations like pausing or resuming downloads.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like nzbget_pause_download or nzbget_resume_download, which might handle similar queue modifications. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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