backup_download_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write nature is covered structurally. The description adds the useful side effect that files land in the account root directory, but says nothing about overwriting existing files, required permissions, or what happens when paths collide — a meaningful gap for a write tool.

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 plus a compact Args block; the destination and action are front-loaded. Slight redundancy in restating parameter names that the schema already lists, but no wasted prose.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description supplies the action, the destination, both parameter meanings, and the backup_id default. The only missing element is overwrite behavior, which is minor given the explicit non-destructive annotation.

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 carries the full burden, and it does document both parameters: paths as a list of paths to download and backup_id with the non-obvious semantic that null means the current backup. That default meaning is not derivable from the schema's bare 'default: null'.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Выгрузить файлы из бэкапа' – download files out of a backup) and adds the destination ('в корневую директорию аккаунта'), which is genuinely informative. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings backup_restore_file and backup_files_list, so an agent could still pick the wrong one from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this versus backup_restore_file, backup_files_list, or backup_download_mysql. The only contextual hint is the inline note that omitting backup_id means the current copy, which describes a default rather than a usage condition.

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