Download Moonvy asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the core action and does not mention side effects (e.g., writing files, overwriting behavior, creation of directories), authentication requirements, error handling, or any constraints on usage. For a tool that writes to the local filesystem, this is a significant transparency 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the asset types directly. There is no wasted verbiage, and the sentence structure is clear and scannable. It earns every word.

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?

Despite having six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only a high-level summary. It does not explain when each asset type should be used, what sliceFormat options do, or any prerequisites or expected outcomes. An agent would need to infer a lot from the schema alone. The description is skeletal and omits crucial operational context.

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 83%, so most parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The description adds a bit of nuance by expanding 'image' to 'image fill' and 'file' to 'top-level file/preview', but it does not clarify the roles of sliceFormat, filename, or the relationship between url and nodeId beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (Download) and the resource (design slice, snapshot, image fill, top-level file/preview) plus the destination (absolute local output directory). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like moonvy_get_design or moonvy_list_layers, which are read-only or exploratory. The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.

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 description makes it clear that this tool is for downloading assets, which separates it from sibling tools that parse URLs, list pages, get node styles, etc. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives for similar tasks (e.g., when to use moonvy_get_design instead). The context is implied but not formally excluded, so a 4 fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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