loremotion_download_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that the tool downloads and returns a local file path, but it omits important behavioral details like whether authentication is required, how the file is saved or overwritten, and whether any persistent side effects occur. Given the sibling tool loremotion_auth_status, auth status seems relevant but is not mentioned.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core action and key information. Every phrase adds value, with no repetition, filler, or buried detail.

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 three parameters, zero required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain which parameter combination is valid, what filename means, what auth requirements exist, or what error conditions might arise. Agents would need to guess or probe to call this correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It does add useful meaning by explaining that videoUrl and shareUrl are alternative sources, but it leaves filename undefined and does not clarify whether one of the URL parameters is required, which one takes precedence, or how filename is used.

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 identifies the action ('Download'), the resource ('generated MP4'), the input forms ('video URL or LoreMotion share URL'), and the output ('local file path'). This distinguishes it from siblings like loremotion_generate_video, which creates the video rather than downloading it.

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 implies the tool should be used after a video has been generated and when a videoUrl or shareUrl is available. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention prerequisites such as prior generation or authentication, or compare it to alternative sibling tools.

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