Create a SpicyAPI output download URL

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds 'short-lived signed URL' and ownership context. However, it does not disclose expiration duration, whether creating the URL incurs costs or triggers a ticket, or any side effects. It also does not clarify whether calling this tool is itself a 'ticket call' – the mention of ticket calls is ambiguous. These gaps leave behavior partially unspecified beyond the annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second delivers usage guidance. Efficient, front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return format need not be covered. But the description omits explanation of the 'key' parameter, which is essential for selecting the right output, and leaves the ticket-call relationship vague. For a tool with only 2 params and clear guidance, it is adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references taskId ('owned by the current task') but never mentions the 'key' parameter, its purpose, or how to choose among multiple outputs. The description adds minimal meaning for taskId and none for key, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a short-lived signed URL for an output owned by the current task and API key.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like task_get and task_wait by positioning itself as a fallback for 'legacy integrations or explicit link renewal,' making its unique role clear.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('for legacy integrations or explicit link renewal') and when not to ('Prefer existing ready output.assets[].url from task_get, task_wait, or a verified v2 webhook'). It names the alternatives and states no ticket call is needed for those links, giving clear routing guidance.

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