download_task

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description complements them by disclosing the concrete overwrite behavior on repeat downloads and the on-disk destination structure. It adds no auth, permission, or rate-limit context, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and destination path, the second handles the format caveat and the alternative tool. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the success requirement, destination path, overwrite semantics, and the alternative tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 100% and the outputs parameter already enumerates the valid values (model, rendered_image, etc.) with its 'default all' behavior. The prose adds only the indirect note that formats come from what the task produced, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 (save/download), the resource (outputs of a successful Tripo task), and the exact destination layout <output dir>/<task_id>/<output>.<ext>. It also distinguishes itself from convert_model in the same breath, so an agent can separate download_task from the format-conversion sibling immediately.

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 a clear precondition (the task must be successful) and explicitly routes other-format needs to convert_model. It does not spell out what to do when a task is not yet complete (e.g., wait_for_task), so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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