Download service file

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the internal flow (mint URL, fetch without API key, atomic write), size verification, SHA-256 response, and the user-approval condition for overwrite. It also explains explicit permission requirements, availability reasons, and the 423 2FA behavior, which directly supports the destructive and non-idempotent 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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and all subsequent details are relevant caveats about safety, permissions, and availability. It is dense and could be structured with bullets for readability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive, open-world, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, safety behavior, auth requirements, platform availability, and failure modes thoroughly. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly or surface a specific unavailability reason.

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 80%, so the schema already documents path, orderNo, localPath, and waitSeconds. The description adds meaningful semantics for overwrite ('replaced only with overwrite=true after the user approved it') and reinforces that localPath is on the machine running the MCP server, compensating for the one undocumented schema field.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Download one file from the server') and names the exact destination ('a local path on the machine running this MCP server'), which distinguishes it from read_service_file, upload_service_file, and get_service_file_download_url. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 gives clear context for when the tool can and cannot be used: required files:read grants, platform-specific availability, and 2FA 423 responses. It does not explicitly route among siblings such as read_service_file or get_service_file_download_url, but the operational prerequisites are unusually well specified.

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