canvas_download_course_files

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful facts: files land in the vault's Descargas folder and the operation also mutates notes. It stops short of what matters most for a write operation — whether existing files or notes are overwritten, how conflicts are resolved, and whether authentication or vault state is required.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with the destination and side effect front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is well structured, though it is brief at the cost of the omissions noted elsewhere.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented parameters, the description should explain overwrite/force semantics, what dry_run previews, and what 'actualiza sus notas' actually changes. None of that is present, so an agent cannot confidently predict the effects of invoking it.

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% across three parameters, so the schema names alone (force, dry_run, course_id) convey no semantics. The description only hints at course_id via 'de un curso' and says nothing at all about force or dry_run, which are the two parameters whose behavior an agent most needs to understand before invoking this.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Descarga los archivos de un curso') plus the destination ('la carpeta Descargas del vault') and a side effect ('actualiza sus notas'), which is far more concrete than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as canvas_download_pdf or canvas_export_course_sources, leaving the agent to infer that this is the bulk file downloader.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use clause and no mention of alternatives like canvas_sync_course, canvas_sync_all_courses, or canvas_download_pdf, even though several siblings plausibly overlap. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'descarga', which leaves real ambiguity about when a full course download is preferable to a sync or a PDF download.

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