zendesk_download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers ticket_id-based cache organization, dest_dir override behavior, archive extraction and returned unpack_dir/file list, PDF text extraction limits, and base64 encoding for images. This is rich, specific behavioral information.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds a distinct, non-redundant detail about prerequisites, cache behavior, or per-type output, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool with varied file-type behaviors, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, parameter effects, archive/PDF/image return formats, and next steps for reading extracted files. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to spell out exact return structures.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: where attachment_url and filename come from, why ticket_id is needed, and how dest_dir changes file destination and extraction. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 specific action: 'Download a Zendesk attachment.' It also points to zendesk_list_attachments as the source for attachment_url and filename, distinguishing this download tool from its listing sibling and other Zendesk tools.

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 gives explicit workflow context: obtain attachment_url and filename from zendesk_list_attachments before downloading. It doesn't enumerate when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, but the prerequisite guidance is clear and useful.

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