Download into the project

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world; the description makes the idempotency concrete via sha256 comparison and skip-if-present, and explains overwrite. It does not touch on auth/prerequisite requirements or which files are selected by default when nothing is narrowed.

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 core action and its dedup semantics are front-loaded, and every clause (dir default, narrowing options, zip, return value) carries information. The middle sentence is dense with stacked options, which slightly hurts scannability but wastes no words.

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 7-parameter write tool with a nested edition object and no output schema, the description covers return location ('where every file went'), defaults, filtering, and overwrite behavior. The main residual gap is the meaning of the required slug and any permission prerequisites.

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 86%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning; the baseline would be 3. The description adds provenance for fileIds ('from list_library'), restates the dir default relative to the project, and implicitly defines slug as the product selector, which the schema leaves undocumented.

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 and resource plus scope: download files the person owns into the project, with checksum verification and skip-if-identical behavior. It is clearly distinct from read-only siblings like list_library or get_product, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_download_links, which is the nearest alternative.

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?

Gives concrete narrowing paths: fileNames/fileIds (sourcing ids from list_library), an edition, or zip:true for the whole product, plus the overwrite condition. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over get_download_links or when not to use it at all.

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