Download an authorized app package or workspace reference to a new local path, verify all bytes, then commit atomically without overwriting existing files.
Download an authorized fixed App package reference to a new local path, verifying all bytes before an atomic no-overwrite commit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| purpose | No | ||
| reference | Yes | ||
| operationId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description goes beyond them by disclosing byte-level verification and an atomic no-overwrite commit, which tells the agent existing files are protected. It omits async/long-running behavior that the file_pause/file_resume/file_cancel siblings imply.
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?
A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed phrasing trades clarity for brevity.
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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: the 'purpose' enum, the 'operationId' parameter (likely tied to apps_operation_status), and whether the download is asynchronous or returns progress are all unaddressed.
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 carry parameter meaning. It only loosely maps to 'path' and 'reference' ('new local path', 'App package reference'); the 'purpose' enum (app-package/app-workspace) and 'operationId' are never explained.
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 gives a clear verb (download) and resource (App package reference to a local path), which distinguishes it from file_upload. However, the qualifier 'authorized fixed App package reference' is opaque jargon that leaves the exact source object ambiguous, and it does not explicitly contrast with apps_file_export or apps_file_commit.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus file_upload or the apps_file_* siblings, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The 'authorized' hint implies a permission gate but gives no actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.