Download All Clips

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description's file-writing behavior is consistent with that. It usefully adds that only 'ready' clips are bundled and covers are included, but says nothing about overwriting an existing file at outputPath, auth/plan requirements, or behavior when some clips are not ready.

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; scope, contents, and output form all land in one pass.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry the full load, and it does explain what the artifact is (one .zip with covers). It omits, however, the return value, overwrite/error behavior, and what happens to non-ready clips, leaving gaps for a bulk mutation 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 50%: outputPath is documented in the schema, projectId is not. The description's 'of a project' and 'as one .zip' loosely map to the two parameters but add no format or validation detail (e.g., whether the path must end in .zip, what happens on collision), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (download) plus resource and scope: 'every ready clip of a project the plan can export, with covers, as one .zip.' The word 'every' implicitly contrasts with the single-clip sibling download_clip, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Ready clip ... the plan can export' implies the precondition for use, but the description never states when to choose this over download_clip or download_beat_edit. Usage is implied by scope rather than spelled out.

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