Download document file

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

Annotations already signal idempotence, non-read-only, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds useful context by stating that writes are confined to PAPERLESS_DOWNLOAD_DIR and that the tool returns the file path. It does not contradict the annotations, and the added safety scoping is genuinely valuable for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences carry the essential message with no filler: the action, the key parameter option, the sibling alternative, and the safety boundary. Formatting with backticks makes parameter values easy to parse.

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 covers the return value (the path), the key parameter distinctions, the alternative tool, and the write boundary, which is strong for a tool with no output schema. It falls slightly short by not clarifying the relationship between `preview` and `thumbnail` or elaborating on the `version` parameter, but the schema covers the latter and the overall picture is sufficient.

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 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each rendition means ('as uploaded', 'OCR'd PDF', 'small preview image') and reinforces the download directory confinement. It does omit the `preview` enum value, but the main parameter semantics are enriched.

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 verb-resource pair ('Save a document's file to local disk and return the path') and clearly differentiates this tool from paperless_get_document by directing text-only needs to the sibling. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from its 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?

It explicitly tells the agent which `kind` to choose for original files, OCR'd archives, and thumbnails, and it specifically says to use paperless_get_document when only extracted text is needed. This provides actionable when-to-use guidance with a clear alternative.

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