move_download_job_outputs

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful context by saying outputs are written 'to this machine' and only for finished jobs, but it does not disclose behavior around overwrite conflicts, partial failures, or whether the download preserves directory structure. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that starts with the verb, front-loads the key distinction ('FINISHED'), and includes only necessary qualifiers. Every word contributes meaningful guidance without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description plus schema covers the key usage conditions: finished job, all outputs by default, optional key filtering, and destination directory. It falls slightly short only because failure conditions and overwrite semantics are left implicit.

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?

The description helps clarify job_id by saying the job must be finished and clarifies the default scope as 'every output file.' The schema already documents keys and dest_dir. However, overwrite has no description in the schema, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Download'), a clear resource ('every output file of a FINISHED job'), and a destination ('to this machine'). This makes the tool's function immediately apparent and distinguishes it from siblings like move_get_file or move_download_file, which target individual files rather than job outputs.

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 clearly states that the job must be FINISHED, providing a concrete precondition for use. It implies that this tool is for batch-downloading all job outputs rather than individual files, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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