Get backup download URL

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the superuser-only restriction and that a fresh superuser file token is used, which adds meaningful context. It does not mention whether the URL expires, whether a new token is generated as a side effect, or what failure modes exist, so transparency is partial rather than complete.

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 only two short sentences. The first sentence states the operation and mechanism, and the second adds the essential authorization constraint. There is no redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it identifies the resource, the return concept, the token mechanism, and the authorization requirement. It could still mention URL expiration or how the fresh token is obtained, but those details are not necessary for basic correct invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter, key, as 'Backup file key/name.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning about the key parameter 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Build a download URL for a backup file.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like download_backup, which implies direct file retrieval, and get_file_token, which presumably returns a token rather than a URL. It also states the key security constraint upfront.

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 'Superuser only' gives a clear access condition, and 'Build a download URL' implies the right use case: when an agent needs a URL rather than the file content itself. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools such as download_backup or get_file_token, leaving some selection inference to the agent.

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