Download Clip

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral context: the operation fails with an unlock message when the clip is blocked by the plan's export cap. It still doesn't explain the destructive aspect (e.g. overwriting an existing file at outputPath), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the failure condition as the second clause. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the description should carry more weight, and it does cover the primary failure mode. However a 5-parameter mutation-style tool leaves 'template' semantics, overwrite behavior, and relative vs absolute path handling unaddressed, so it is sufficient but not complete.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the 'video'/'srt' format branch maps to the output file type, but the 'template' enum (blurred/clean) is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and the output overwrite/extension rules are left implicit.

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 ('Download a rendered clip') and extends it to a second artifact type ('or its captions as .srt'), which helps an agent understand the format branch. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling 'download_all_clips' or 'download_beat_edit', so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the presence of sibling download tools (download_all_clips, download_beat_edit) but the description never says when to pick this single-clip variant over them, nor any prerequisite such as the clip being rendered first. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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