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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false) cover the safety profile, and the description adds substantive behavior: revision-based conflict detection, immediate application to live versions, and that enabled=false disables all download URLs while preserving the list. It omits permissions/auth requirements and returns, but the concurrency semantics are 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?

Front-loads the core action and then packs constraint details densely; each sentence carries operational information. It is a bit clause-heavy in the middle (label/description/downloadName/showFilename), but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema and a nested config object, the description covers the mutation semantics, concurrency, and disable behavior adequately. Minor gaps remain around permissions and exactly what the caller should do after a successful write.

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 load, and it does: it explains source (or null), ordered attachments, required labels, optional description/downloadName, showFilename defaulting to false, keeping filename extensions, and the enabled toggle. Only revision/version_id semantics are left to inference (partially hinted by the 'read get_downloads first' instruction).

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Replace an approved version's download settings without reuploading its content.' This clearly distinguishes a write/config operation from read siblings like get_downloads and preview_downloads.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Read get_downloads first for its revision and candidates' and gives a conflict-handling rule ('read and review again; do not overwrite blindly'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, contrast with preview_downloads or state prerequisites such as the version needing to be approved/published.

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