download_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the side effect of writing a file on the server machine, streaming to disk for large albums, and the no-overwrite guarantee. It also states the return shape. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond what the schema provides.

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 well-structured with a clear first-sentence purpose, a useful usage hint, behavioral facts, then a labeled Args and Returns section. Every sentence adds value and nothing feels redundant or padded. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs: purpose, parameter selection, side effects, safety, and return format. The existence of an output schema covers detailed return structure. It even names the related get_download_info tool for size checks. No critical decision-making information is missing.

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 explains each parameter: output_path (where to write, existing file refused), album_id (whole album), asset_ids (just those assets). It adds the mutual exclusivity via 'or' and the refusal behavior. It lacks explicit detail on what happens if both or neither are provided, but the core semantics are clear.

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 clearly states the action ('Download an album or a selection as one zip of the original files') and the destination ('written to a local path'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the zip of original files and local-path output, which separates it from get_download_info, export_pdf, and thumbnail/image tools.

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?

It explicitly directs the agent to call get_download_info first when size matters, which is a clear alternative and condition. It also presents the album_id vs asset_ids choice with 'or'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for previews or PDF exports), so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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