Download files to this computer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description meaningfully reinforces them: write scope is bounded ('nothing outside it is written'), the operation is resumable, folder structure is preserved, and existing full-size files are skipped. It adds scope and skip behavior beyond the hints, though it says nothing about auth/permissions or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then tight behavioral clauses. Every sentence earns its place; the em-dash aside is slightly informal but not wasteful.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers placement, scope, resumability, and return value ('Returns the saved paths'). It is complete enough to invoke correctly, with only permissions/error behavior left implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents every parameter; baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning by clarifying the identifier relationship (a shared link URL versus your own transfer/collection ids) and by explaining how `directory` is used (files land in a new subfolder, not scattered into it).

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 ('Save the files') and names the exact resources it operates on (a Yungle link, one of your own transfers or collections). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_download_links or get_transfer, which surface metadata/links rather than saving files to the local machine.

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 implies when to use it ('into a folder on this machine'), which contrasts with link/metadata siblings, but it names no alternative explicitly and gives no when-not-to-use or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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