download_font

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description reveals important behavior: it writes to disk, explains default destination resolution with the current resolved path, details how variable mode ignores weights/format, and notes that zip mode saves without extracting. It also states the return value. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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 compact yet information-dense, organized around destination first then the three modes. Every sentence adds functional value with no filler.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the destination, default path, mode-specific behavior, and return value. It could additionally clarify overwrite behavior or explicitly route to siblings, but the essential invocation context is well covered.

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 coverage is high at 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the dest default resolution, variable/zip parameter interactions, and static mode filtering behavior, which improves parameter understanding.

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 core action — 'Download font files to disk under <dest>/<id>/' — and specifies the exact output destination. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_font and get_font_css, which retrieve content rather than write files to disk.

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 strong guidance on the three execution modes (static, variable, zip) and how they affect parameters, which is useful for invocation. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer download_font over sibling tools, so the selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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