Download a doc’s images

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the side effect (downloading to local folder), the return value (objectId→filename mapping), and a key integration behavior (correlation with read_doc). It doesn't mention permissions, error behavior, or that the doc itself isn't modified, but 'download' implies non-destructive read from the doc. The transparency is solid without being exhaustive.

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 description is two sentences: the first states the core action, the second explains the return mapping and a crucial correlation with read_doc. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description successfully communicates the tool's purpose, output, and usage context. It covers the main use case (downloading all images and rewriting references). It doesn't address edge cases like 'no images' or error handling, but those are minor for a download tool; overall it's complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions), so the schema does most of the work. The tool description says 'local folder' early on, aligning with the `dir` parameter, but doesn't discuss `documentId`, `tab`, or `account`. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific, actionable verb phrase 'Download every embedded image in a Google Doc to a local folder', clearly identifying the resource (images in Google Doc), the action (download to local folder), and the output (objectId-to-filename mapping). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the 'inverse of publishing' and referencing read_doc, setting it apart from mere read or insert operations.

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 clear workflow context: it explains how the return mapping correlates with read_doc's image markers, indicating when you'd use this tool (to replace remote image references with local paths). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top-tier 'when-not' guidance.

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