drive_download

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

The annotation only provides openWorldHint: true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses that folders download recursively, that conflictStrategy defaults to 'skip' and can be overridden, that it fails if the parent directory is missing, and that it returns a {downloaded} count. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond the vague openWorldHint, with no contradictions.

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 three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every subsequent clause earns its place by adding a critical behavioral or usage detail (recursion, conflicts, failure conditions, return value, exclusions). It is dense but not bloated, and the final sentence explicitly steers users to better alternatives.

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 tool with no output schema and only an openWorldHint, this description covers all essential aspects: purpose, authentication, recursion, conflict handling, failure mode, return value, and alternatives. It also acknowledges the filesystem-side effects implied by openWorldHint. There are no obvious gaps in what an agent needs to invoke the tool 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 100%, and each parameter already has a thorough description: localPath includes 'Parent directory must already exist', remotePath includes an example, and conflictStrategy explains all three enum values. The tool description largely repeats this information (e.g., 'Fails if the local parent directory does not exist' mirrors localPath), adding no genuinely new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 verb+resource: 'Download a file or folder from Proton Drive to the local filesystem.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Do not use to move files within Drive (use drive_move) or to read a small text file's contents (use drive_read_file...).' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It names alternatives (drive_move, drive_read_file) and states prerequisites ('Requires authentication', 'Fails if the local parent directory does not exist'). It also explains the behavior of the conflictStrategy parameter and how to choose among its values, making usage conditions clear.

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