vortex_download_mod

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful un-annotated context: the return is a job ID, free-tier users may hit an interactive step, and no install occurs — behavior an agent can't infer from annotations alone.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, every sentence carrying distinct information (action, return, caveat, boundary). No redundancy or 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?

Behavior is reasonably covered and the job-ID return partially substitutes for a missing output schema, but two of three required parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description, and no workflow routing to the install/deploy siblings is given. Adequate but with 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 only 33% (only gameId is documented in the schema), and the description adds nothing about modId or fileId. With coverage below 50%, the description was the place to compensate and it does not, leaving two required identifiers semantically opaque.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Queue a Nexus file download in Vortex'. The scope is precise, and 'Does not auto-install' implicitly separates it from the sibling vortex_install_download, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives situational context ('using its signed-in session', 'Free users may need to complete a website/dialog step') and a negative ('Does not auto-install'), but never names the alternative tool (e.g. vortex_install_download) or states explicitly when to call it versus those siblings. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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