download_temp_media

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive safety, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond that. It does add meaningful context: the binary response is written locally to save_path and existing files are not overwritten.

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?

A single compact sentence states the operation and the key side effect. Every part earns its place and there is 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 two-parameter tool with output schema and rich annotations, it is close to complete, but it omits the provenance/format of media_id and any failure behavior when save_path already exists (aside from not overwriting). An agent might still need to inspect siblings or prior call outputs to call this 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies save_path as the local destination and the no-overwrite rule, but it does not explain media_id or how it is obtained/formatted, leaving a required parameter under-specified.

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 operation— retrieving temporary media—and adds the exact local side effect (writing a binary response to save_path without overwriting). This is concrete enough to separate the tool from the many upload/list/delete siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over upload_temp_media, list materials, or other media endpoints. The context of 'temporary material' is implicit, but there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.

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