Preview track, size, and user totals for a playlist, then enqueue approved transfers in Nicotine+ once a confidence threshold is met.
Without yes: the totals (tracks, size, users) of what would be downloaded; show them to the user. With yes=True: queue the transfers in Nicotine+. min_confidence first approves every candidate at or above it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| yes | No | ||
| playlist_id | Yes | ||
| min_confidence | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds that yes=False gives a preview and yes=True performs the queueing, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe whether queued transfers are reversible (cancel_job suggests possible), rate limits, or what happens to already-queued items.
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?
Compact, front-loads the conditional behavior. Could be slightly clearer with structured formatting, but every sentence conveys needed 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?
For a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the two optional params but omits playlist_id semantics and the return format of the dry-run totals. It's adequate but has clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the yes flag (boolean default false) and min_confidence (approves candidates at or above it), but says nothing about playlist_id (required integer) beyond implying a playlist exists. The meaning of min_confidence relative to 'confidence' is not fully clear.
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 a clear split behavior: dry-run style total preview without 'yes', actual queueing with yes=True. This is a specific verb+resource combination, though the two-mode behavior is somewhat non-standard for a tool named 'queue_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?
Implies when to use the dry-run (show totals to user) vs actual execution (yes=True), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives in the sibling list (e.g., approve_tracks, review_candidates) or state exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.