zas_receive_direct_fallback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden and it does well: it discloses that decryption happens locally, that the file is written to the same destination, and the reliable-delivery precondition. It omits what happens if the precondition is unmet (error vs. silent no-op) and whether the download is idempotent.

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 functional content is front-loaded and clear, but the final sentence about the owner seeing items with the agent mark and name is tangential marketing copy that dilutes the definition and doesn't help the agent invoke the tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers trigger, precondition, and side effects (local decryption, write destination) adequately. Missing only failure semantics when the precondition isn't met.

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 schema already defines the single 'job' parameter with a clear description. The description adds the provenance of the id ('the failed job's id'), which is mildly useful routing context but essentially restates the schema.

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 (download) and resource (the encrypted stored copy) and ties it to a precise triggering condition (after a zas_receive_direct job failed in flight). The link to the named sibling zas_receive_direct makes the relationship unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly conditions use on two things: a prior zas_receive_direct failure and the sender having chosen reliable delivery for that transfer. It also names the required argument (the failed job's id), so the agent knows exactly when this applies and what to supply.

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