Put a file from a URL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly describes the write action and adds a helpful side-effect detail (content bypasses the conversation), but it does not disclose overwrite semantics, access requirements, or error behavior. This is modest disclosure rather than full transparency.

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 24-word sentence that leads with the action, states the storage target, and closes with the motivating case. Every phrase contributes to understanding and no redundancy is present.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it identifies the source, destination, and intended use case. However, with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the omission of `content_type` and any note about overwriting an existing file leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `url` is the download source and `path` is the storage destination, but it never explains `content_type`, which appears only as an unannotated schema property. This partial compensation leaves one parameter semantically 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 opens with a clear verb ('Download') and resource ('a URL') and specifies the outcome ('store it under `path`'), which makes the tool's function unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `put_file` by explaining that content never passes through the conversation, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 phrase 'so large binaries (a host build from CI, for example) never pass through the conversation' gives a concrete scenario and rationale for choosing this tool. It does not explicitly name `put_file` as the alternative or state when not to use it, stopping short of full when/when-not guidance.

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