transfer_files_from_integration

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool 'creates a new package' and 'initiates the transfer', indicating a write operation and implying asynchronous initiation. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether source files are deleted), idempotency, or how to monitor completion. This is adequate but not rich.

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 consists of two succinct sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides a critical usage tip. No unnecessary words or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential: what the tool does, prerequisite steps, and that it creates a package. It could mention how to check transfer status (e.g., using 'get_package_transfers'), but the information provided is sufficient for most use cases.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that file IDs come from 'list_files_on_integration', aiding parameter selection. No additional semantic detail beyond the schema is provided for other parameters, keeping the score at baseline.

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 verb ('Transfer files'), the source (cloud integration or Storage Gateway), and the destination (MASV). It also mentions creating a new package and initiating the transfer, which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like 'send_package_to_integration' (which does the reverse).

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 explicitly advises using 'list_files_on_integration' first to obtain file IDs, providing clear prerequisite guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or list alternatives, but the context of siblings (e.g., 'send_package_to_integration') implies the direction.

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