force_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: bypassing queue/connection limits and starting downloads immediately. Yet it omits side effects (e.g., impact on existing downloads, reversibility) and prerequisites, which a mutation tool should clarify. It adds some value over the name but is not comprehensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and qualifier, earning a top score for conciseness and clear structure.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally clarify return behavior, expected outcomes, or error conditions. It explains the action but leaves gaps around parameter usage and side effects, making it minimally adequate for context completeness.

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%—the description never mentions link_ids or package_ids. While the schema names are clear, the description does not explain that users can pass either or both, nor what happens if both are null. Given low schema coverage, the description should compensate but doesn't, providing minimal semantic value.

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 ('Force... to download now') and resource ('given items'), with a specific qualifier ('bypassing queue/connection limits') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like control_downloads or move_to_downloads. This meets the 'specific verb+resource, distinguishes from siblings' criterion.

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 phrase 'bypassing queue/connection limits' clearly implies this tool is for forcing downloads immediately, overriding normal limits—a context distinct from siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' standard for a 5.

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