create_download_queue_by_queue_id_add

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

Annotations already convey that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds only the endpoint and the generic action, without extra behavioral context such as duplicate handling, required permissions, or effects on existing queue items. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and organized into endpoint and args sections. Every line is short, though the arg descriptions could be slightly more substantive without bloating the text.

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?

With only two parameters and existing annotations, the tool is simple, but the meaning of 'keys' is critically underspecified. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still lacks enough detail about valid inputs and operational context for confident invocation.

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 compensate for the schema's silence. It names queue_id and keys with terse glosses ('The queue id', 'Keys to add'), but it never explains what a queue id refers to or what format/values keys should take. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid request.

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 states a specific action ('Add to download queue') and exposes the endpoint POST /downloadQueue/{queueId}/add, making the operation clear. It is distinguishable from the sibling create_download_queue by the verb 'add' versus 'create', though it does not explicitly call out that difference.

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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as create_download_queue or the download-queue item deletion/restart tools. There is no mention of prerequisites like an existing queue or what kinds of keys are valid.

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