Download file

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes to a local filesystem path (side effect) and that requesting a token is handled internally for protected files (auth behavior). It does not mention overwrite behavior or error responses, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 sentences with no filler: the main action and destination come first, and the protected-file behavior is added in the second sentence. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

The description is complete enough for selecting and invoking this straightforward download tool: it covers what is downloaded, where it is written, and how protected files are handled. It omits return-value details and filesystem edge cases like directory creation or file overwrite, but those are not essential for a basic download operation.

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 adds value by clarifying destPath is on the MCP server machine and explaining the protected-file token handling, but it does not add meaning for thumb, filename, recordId, or collection beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific action ('Download'), a specific resource ('record file'), and a specific destination ('local path on the machine running this MCP server'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_file_url or get_file_token that return URLs/tokens rather than writing to server-local storage.

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 phrase 'local path on the machine running this MCP server' gives clear context that this tool is for server-side file writes, and 'handles protected files automatically' tells the agent it can be used for protected records without extra token plumbing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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