add_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions the action and parameter requirements, omitting critical details like permissions, idempotency, or what happens on error. The '[control]' tag is unclear.

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 concise with a single sentence and a brief Args section. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, though the '[control]' tag could be omitted for clarity.

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 (2 simple params) and the presumed existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling, progress, or return behavior, which would be useful for a download tool.

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%, but the description adds meaningful guidance: 'HTTP/FTP URL or magnet link' for url and 'Shared-folder path (without leading slash), e.g. "video/movies"' for destination. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action 'Add a new download task' and specifies the sources 'from a URL or magnet link'. This precisely identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_downloads and manage_download.

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?

The description explains required parameters and destination format, implying usage context, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to avoid using this tool. No guidance on prerequisites or when alternatives are better.

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