gen_uthana_download_motion

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the approval requirement, but it omits other important traits such as whether the download consumes credits, writes files locally, requires authentication, or behaves differently depending on confirm_usage and check_download_allowed. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety or side-effect hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear sentence, a KB pointer, and a concrete example. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 an output schema, the tool is complex with 13 parameters and no annotations. The description does not explain most parameters, the download workflow, prerequisites beyond approval, or how this step relates to the broader Uthana pipeline. The KB reference helps, but the description itself is not self-sufficient.

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 compensate. The example hints at motion_id, output_format, and confirm_usage values, but the remaining ten parameters (fps, no_mesh, in_place, timeout_s, torso_only, motion_only, character_id, target_folder, speed_multiplier, check_download_allowed) are left unexplained.

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 tool downloads a Uthana motion file, using a specific verb and resource. It also adds a key qualifier ('after explicit usage approval'), though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like gen_uthana_get_motion or gen_uthana_check_download_allowed.

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 communicates a clear prerequisite: explicit usage approval is required before downloading. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings, when not to use it, or what preceding checks (e.g., gen_uthana_check_download_allowed) should be run, leaving workflow routing largely implied.

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