Download Recording File

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'An existing file at target_path is overwritten.' This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation by specifying exactly what is destructive. It also mentions 'best available quality,' giving a concrete behavioral expectation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the essential overwrite warning. Every word adds value; there is no fluff. This is an excellent example of concise, structured documentation.

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 file-download tool, the description covers the core behavior and safety caveat. It could mention what happens when target_path is a directory or potential output formats, but the presence of annotations and output schema fills some gaps. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema, aside from implying overwrite behavior for target_path and quality selection. It does not clarify the file-vs-directory ambiguity present in the schema's target_path description, leaving the parameter semantics adequately but not richly explained.

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 clearly states the action ('Download a recording's video file to disk') and resource ('recording'), with the added qualifier 'best available quality'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_recordings and get_recording, which are for listing and retrieving metadata rather than downloading files.

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 tool's purpose is self-evident from the description: use it when you need the actual video file of a recording, as opposed to listing recordings or getting metadata. No explicit exclusions or alternative tool names are given, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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