lm_download

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the disk-space cost and that it returns a job ID/status rather than the artifact itself. That async, resource-consuming nature is important operational context not present in structured fields.

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 with the action front-loaded and the side effect (disk consumption) attached immediately. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description usefully notes the job ID/status return, and it flags the resource cost. The only gap is the quantization parameter's meaning and whether polling via lm_download_status is expected, but the core operational picture is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It roughly conveys what 'model' accepts (catalog name or HF URL) but says nothing about 'quantization', leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (Download) and resource scope (catalog model or Hugging Face URL), which distinguishes it reasonably well from lm_import_model and lm_load. However it does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, lm_import_model, leaving some inference required.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus lm_import_model, lm_load, or lm_download_status. The description never states prerequisites or the alternative path for loading a model already present.

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