Download Asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses several important traits: a 10 MB maximum, no overwriting of existing files, and disabled external SVG downloads. It omits failure behavior, permissions/auth needs, and what is returned (e.g., saved path), but the core safety and constraint profile is unusually well covered for this tool type.

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?

Front-loads the action and destination, then adds constraints in short, scannable clauses. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 simple three-parameter download tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical constraints an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by stating what happens on duplicate/overwrite attempts or what value is returned, but the essentials are present.

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%, so the schema already documents url, dir, and filename with defaults and sanitization notes. The description adds only the default folder path and URL context, not new parameter semantics; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: save one raster image from a URL to a project folder. The raster-only and URL-source scope distinguishes it from sibling asset tools such as make_asset, find_images, and draw_icon without needing to open the schema.

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?

Provides a useful precondition ('Check the source license first') and a clear exclusion ('External SVG downloads are disabled'), but does not name alternatives for SVG handling or explain when to choose this over sibling workflows like make_asset or sync_figcraft_assets. Usage is mostly implied by constraints rather than explicitly routed.

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