lr_download_photos

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (writing files to disk), the default destination directory, the output file naming convention, and a performance tradeoff ('fullsize... slower'). It omits auth requirements (an lr_login sibling exists) and whether existing files at the destination are overwritten.

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 action, then parameter semantics, then destination/naming details; every sentence adds information. The telegraphic fragment style ('size: '640' | ...') is compact, though slightly clipped relative to prose alternatives.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation; the description covers input modes, size choices, destination default, and file naming. What is missing is only peripheral: auth expectations and overwrite/error behavior for a filesystem-writing tool.

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% and the schema has no enums, so the description must compensate — and it does: it supplies the full allowed size list (640/1280/2048/2560/fullsize) with resolution semantics, the either/or relationship between asset_ids and album_id, and the dest_dir default path template.

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 effect: save photos as JPEG files to local disk. This clearly separates it from read-only siblings like lr_get_photo, lr_view_photos and lr_list_photos, which retrieve rather than persist photos.

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 meaningful input-mode guidance ('Pass either asset_ids or album_id (the whole album)'), which implies the two modes are mutually exclusive. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings such as lr_view_photos or lr_get_photo, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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