archive_downloads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently explains that files are moved, that selection is by extension, and that environment variables are used as fallback. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as irreversibility, overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when no files match.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded and the fallback behavior in a separate sentence. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema information or unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description conveys the main behavior and configuration fallback. However, the vague phrase 'by extension' and the lack of detail on collisions, missing files, or return behavior leave gaps that an agent might need to know before invoking it confidently.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by linking source_dirs and dest_dir to ARCHIVE_SOURCE_DIRS and ARCHIVE_DEST_DIR, clarifying that they override environment defaults. It does not describe expected path formats or how multiple source directories are handled, but it provides meaningful semantic context.

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 ('Move finished downloads'), identifies the resource ('download client's folders'), and names the destination ('the archive'). It clearly differentiates this from the sibling tools, none of which perform archiving.

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 the tool is for archiving completed downloads, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or describe prerequisites beyond environment fallback. The usage context is clear enough from the action, but exclusions and alternatives are left unstated.

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