download_add

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns a new task ID and supports multiple protocols, implying it initiates a download. However, it does not disclose whether the download starts immediately or is queued, what happens with invalid URLs, or any other side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth given no 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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and key details upfront. It is not verbose and every part adds value, but it lacks explicit structure like bullet points or sections.

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 has 10 parameters, many optional but specific, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value format, error handling, default behaviors for optional parameters, or the significance of certain fields like checksum or segments. More context would be needed for effective use.

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 100%, so each parameter is documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as listing supported protocols. It does not elaborate on parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool creates a new download task, lists supported protocols (HTTP/HTTPS/FTP/Magnet/BitTorrent), and mentions the return of a new task ID. This specifically distinguishes it from sibling tools like download_get or download_pause, which handle existing tasks.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or when not to use it. With sibling tools for various task operations, some usage context would be beneficial.

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