Validate and archive a manually downloaded artifact for a confirmed successful job, ensuring the file is correctly recorded and stored for the completed work.
Validate/archive a manually downloaded artifact for a confirmed successful job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| downloaded_file | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool validates and archives, but it does not describe side effects, whether archiving is irreversible, what validation checks occur, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely moves or stores files.
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, tightly worded sentence. Every word contributes meaning, including 'manually' and 'confirmed successful,' which set scope. There is no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, this description is too thin for confident invocation. An agent would still need to infer how to supply the file, what validation means in this context, and what the archive step does to the artifact.
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%, and the description does not define either parameter. It implies that 'downloaded_file' is the manually downloaded artifact and 'job_id' refers to the confirmed successful job, but it omits critical details like file path format, accepted values, or expected relationship between the two parameters.
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 states specific actions ('Validate/archive') on a clear resource ('a manually downloaded artifact') and an explicit condition ('confirmed successful job'). This makes it distinguishable from sibling tools like workbench_download, though no sibling is named directly.
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 'manually downloaded artifact for a confirmed successful job' gives a clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it or point to an alternative tool, leaving some routing decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.