zas_receive_direct_fallback

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that the copy is decrypted locally, that it is written to the same destination as the failed receive, and the gating condition on the sender's delivery choice. It does not say what happens on failure (missing copy, wrong sender choice) or whether the write overwrites an existing file, which keeps it below a 5.

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 core information (precondition, action, destination, parameter) is front-loaded and compact. The trailing sentence about the owner seeing agent-marked items is tangential to invoking this tool and slightly dilutes focus, but it is short and does not obscure the main instruction.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema recovery tool, the description covers the precondition, the action, the local decrypt/write behavior, and the argument. The main missing piece is error/edge behavior when the sender did not enable reliable delivery or the stored copy is unavailable.

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% and the only parameter's description already says 'the job id zas_receive_direct or zas_jobs reported for the receive that failed'. The description's 'Pass the failed job's id' restates that without adding format or sourcing detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (download the encrypted copy stored instead) and ties it directly to the recovery of a failed zas_receive_direct job, which cleanly separates it from the sibling zas_receive_direct and the other send/receive tools. An agent can tell exactly which operation this is without opening 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?

It states the triggering condition ('After a zas_receive_direct job failed in flight') and the prerequisite that the sender chose reliable delivery, which is enough to route correctly. It stops short of naming what to do when that prerequisite is not met (e.g. retry zas_receive_direct or report failure), so it is not fully explicit about alternatives.

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