download_flow_video

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context — that downloads require an 'authorized' source, that output is confined to FLOW_OUTPUT_DIR, and that validation is not this tool's job — but it says nothing about overwrite behavior, failure modes, or what the tool returns on success.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the legacy/deprecation warning and the intended audience ('manual') front-loaded before the caveat. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 three-parameter download tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important framing: it is a legacy path, requires authorization, and writes only under FLOW_OUTPUT_DIR. It stops short of describing return value or failure/overwrite semantics, which an agent would still need to discover.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in structured data and baseline is 3. The description reinforces that videoUrl may be a URL or a Drive ID and that outputPath is sandboxed to FLOW_OUTPUT_DIR, but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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 and resource ('Legacy manual download from an authorized Google asset URL or Drive ID') and flags it as legacy, which separates it from the generate/orchestration siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the generic drive_download sibling, so an agent could still hesitate between the two.

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?

'Legacy manual download' plus 'Completed orchestration jobs already download and validate their own asset' gives a clear when-not-to-use signal: don't call this if a job already produced the asset. It never names the preferred alternative tool, so the agent must infer rather than be routed.

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