rastermoves_download

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

Annotations already declare destructive, open-world, non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds real value on top: it names the base effect flags (write, download, network) and warns that inference/download effects may be conditional and should be checked via danceflow_component. It also discloses the asynchronous job contract, which annotations cannot express. It omits what a bad or partial download does to the cache and whether strict_checksums failures roll back.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return contract, then effect flags, then a conditional caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated. The telegraphic 'Base effect flags:' phrasing is slightly terse 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 destructive, asynchronous download tool with an output schema available, the description covers the action, the async follow-up, and the effect/permission model. The main gaps are cache-location defaults and failure behavior, which matter for a destructive write to disk. It is otherwise sufficient to invoke 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 only 50%, and the description only implicitly maps to the inputs by mentioning 'selected model' and 'configured cache'. Required arguments like allow_downloads (a const true authorization gate after licence review) and strict_checksums are not explained in the description, though the schema itself carries a description for allow_downloads. Naming the effect flags gives partial help with the permissions object, so this lands at baseline rather than below 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 and resource: 'Explicitly download one selected model's weights to the configured cache.' That is far more precise than the name alone and tells the agent this is a single-model fetch rather than a bulk sync. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the close sibling rastermoves_download_refiner, leaving the agent to guess which download tool applies.

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 clear downstream context: the call returns a retained background job and the agent should poll danceflow_job_status. The adverb 'Explicitly' and the mention of inspecting danceflow_component imply a review step before invoking. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as when to prefer rastermoves_sync or rastermoves_download_refiner instead.

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