tripo_download

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior beyond the schema: fbx/obj/stl are converted locally with assimp, and FBX/OBJ are extracted along with textures into a same-named directory — a genuine filesystem side effect an agent should know about. It still omits overwrite behavior, whether directories are created, and what happens on conversion failure.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action and required input front-loaded, then the format/conversion caveats. Nothing is padded, though the format enumeration partly restates the schema and is slightly out of date against the enum.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what the call returns (a file path? a status?) and how the animation flags interact with format. The local-conversion behavior is covered, but the return value and the animation parameter family are not.

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 86%, so the schema already documents format, animated, out_path, animation_name, all_animations and animation_only. The description reinforces the format enum but lists only glb/fbx/obj/stl and omits 3mf, and says nothing about the four animation-related parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb + resource + scope: download the model of an existing project (project_id) to local storage. It is clearly distinct from tripo_import (the upload direction) and from the generate/rig/texture siblings without needing their schemas. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it says the project must already exist and requires project_id, which implies a prior create/generate step. There is no explicit guidance on where project_id comes from (tripo_list_projects) or when to prefer this over tripo_import, so an agent must infer the routing.

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