vortex_install_download

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it is asynchronous ('Returns a job ID'), Vortex may surface installers/dialogs, and the installed mod is not auto-enabled. It does not state permissions or failure modes, but for a queued job tool this is a meaningful addition.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then return value, UI behavior, and post-condition. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema, but the description covers the return value ('a job ID'), the precondition (finished download), the target (active profile game), and the post-condition (not auto-enabled) plus what Vortex handles. Enough for an agent to call it correctly; only parameter formats and the profileId/active-profile ambiguity remain.

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 carry the parameter burden. It does implicitly map downloadId to 'a finished Vortex download' and profileId to the target game profile, but gives no format, source, or constraints. It also creates mild ambiguity by saying 'ACTIVE profile' while the schema requires an explicit profileId.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Queue installation of a finished Vortex download') with explicit scope ('into the ACTIVE profile game'), which separates it from the download-side siblings like vortex_download_mod. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'Finished Vortex download' establishes the precondition that the download must already exist, and 'Does not auto-enable' signals the follow-up action. No explicit exclusion or named alternative ('use X instead') is given, so it falls short of a 5.

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