Download asset archive

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful dependency chain (prior getDownloadInfo call) and that the output is a ZIP archive. It does not mention auth requirements or the binary response format, but it adds real context beyond the annotations.

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 plus an operation tag, with the core action front-loaded and the precondition immediately after. The title is redundantly repeated as the first line, but nothing else 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?

For a 5-parameter POST with no output schema, the definition covers the essential call sequence (getDownloadInfo first, then this) and identifies the payload subject. Missing the return type (a binary ZIP) and the meaning of the undocumented body fields keeps it from being complete.

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 60% over 5 parameters; the schema names key, slug, edited, assetIds and archiveName but documents none of them meaningfully. The description only maps 'the specified assets' to assetIds and says nothing about archiveName, key, slug, or edited, so it does little to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Download a ZIP archive containing the specified assets'), which is enough to separate it from immich_download_asset (single asset) and immich_download_asset_file. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a concrete precondition: assets 'must have been previously requested via the getDownloadInfo endpoint.' That is genuine when-to-use guidance for a tool that would otherwise fail confusingly. It does not name alternative download tools or say when not to use this one.

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