x_api_dm_conversations_media_download

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure and delivers: read-only risk, required OAuth scopes (dm.read), environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings about sensitive data. This is comprehensive and exceeds the minimum needed to inform an agent.

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 well-organized with clearly labeled sections (Use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.) and front-loads the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy, and the first 'Use when' line redundantly restates the purpose, but each section provides actionable information and the structure aids quick scanning.

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 tool's complexity (9 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers most critical aspects: auth prerequisites, environment-selection behavior, response shape, failure conditions, recommended tools, and an example. However, it omits explanations for some optional parameters and does not elaborate on the meaning of the required resource IDs, so it's not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the behavior of scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in environment selection, but the required path parameters (dm_id, media_id, resource_id) are only listed as 'path, unknown, required' with no semantic meaning. Optional params like authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are left undocumented, leaving notable gaps.

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 opens with 'Download DM Media,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. The tool name itself differentiates it from chat media download and other media tools, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like x_api_chat_media_download, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 includes explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections, advising against using it for exploration and recommending x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion instead. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools (x_connection_info, x_auth_get_scope_credentials, x_api_request), providing solid context for when this tool fits in a workflow.

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