zas_receive_direct

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses waiting behavior, a one-minute return with a job id, a possible ten-minute offer wait, no server-side storage, non-overwriting behavior, and the returned path. These are meaningful operational traits beyond the input schema.

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?

The purpose and key constraints are front-loaded, and the async timing details are useful. However, the final sentence about the owner seeing items this agent sends is tangential for a receive tool and weakens the claim that every sentence earns its place.

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 complex async receive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers prerequisites, waiting, job id follow-up, return path, and overwrite safety. It still omits failure/timeout behavior and does not name the fallback alternative.

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 100%, so both dest and channel are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces writing to disk and returning the path, but it does not add syntax or defaults beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: receive a file the owner sends through Directo and write it to this machine. It clearly explains the receive/write flow, but it does not explicitly name the fallback sibling used in other modes, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 gives clear usage conditions: call it when the owner says they are sending something, only for a channel in Directo mode, and only with a grant that includes reading. It does not explicitly point to zas_receive_direct_fallback as the alternative for other modes.

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