ic_download_document

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it will not overwrite existing files unless overwrite is true, and it returns FeatureDisabled if the module is off. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent anticipate side effects and error cases.

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?

Three concise sentences with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, followed by parameter clarifications and a side-effect note. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 download tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: how to obtain documentId, the destination constraints, the overwrite default, and a possible error. It does not mention success return values or authentication prerequisites, but given the destructiveHint and sibling context, it is reasonably 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?

The schema description coverage is 50% (documentId and destinationPath have descriptions). The description repeats those descriptions without adding new meaning, but does explain the overwrite parameter's behavioral effect. It does not clarify the district parameter. Overall, it adds modest value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Download a student's document (PDF) to disk'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ic_list_documents, which lists documents, by explicitly specifying the download action. The target directory and default are provided, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a clear context for usage by stating that documentId is the url field from ic_list_documents, implying a sequential dependency. It also mentions the overwrite behavior and the FeatureDisabled error condition, which help decide when to call. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use, though no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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