canvas_file_download_link

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive flags; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the link is single-use, expires in 5 minutes, requires the header embedded in the command, and the bytes come directly from Canvas rather than through the tool. It also explains the retry path on expiry, which is substantive operational guidance.

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 outcome (file onto the user's machine) before the mechanics, and every clause carries information (expiry, header, fallback, param source). It is a dense single block rather than cleanly separated lines, which slightly reduces scannability.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the return shape (exact curl command plus expected size), the constraints on that return value, and the failure/retry behavior. For a one-parameter tool with annotations present, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as a Canvas file id sourced from canvas_files/canvas_find_files/module item. The description adds only the additional provenance detail of a '/files/<id>' link and the constraint that no other arguments are taken — useful but marginal.

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 action and resource: put an ORIGINAL Canvas file on the user's computer by returning a one-time curl command plus expected size. It explicitly distinguishes itself from canvas_file_original and canvas_file_content, so an agent can pick the right sibling without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (shell-capable coding agent), when-not (cloud chats cannot reach it), the named alternatives for that case, and a remediation rule ('run the command right away; if it fails or expires, call this again'). Nothing is left to inference.

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