ddb_download_character

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation. The description adds the login requirement and the 'full JSON data' detail, but it does not disclose behaviors like file overwriting or side effects beyond the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the login prerequisite in the second. Every word adds value; there is no repetition or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required) and the schema's full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the auth prerequisite, and the output type. No output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It is complete for this context, though it could mention potential file overwriting behavior, which is partially covered by annotations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters fully described. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already states (e.g., output_path defaults and restrictions are in the schema). Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('Download'), a clear resource ('a character's full JSON data'), and a destination ('to a local file'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddb_get_character_raw or ddb_get_character, which likely retrieve data without saving to a file.

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 usage when a local file copy is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides a useful prerequisite ('run ddb_login first') but no exclusions or mentions of sibling tools, so guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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