Download Asset

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

With no readOnly or destructive annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that zip archives are extracted, nested addons are relocated, and editor plugins require manual enabling. It stops short of mentioning overwrites, network behavior, or failure modes, but the disclosed extraction behavior is substantial and useful.

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 description is front-loaded with the one-line summary, followed by a dense but necessary explanation of extraction and plugin placement. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

The description explains the critical behavior of the tool — extraction, addon movement, and plugin enabling — and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites for asset_id and potential overwrite behavior, but the provided context is strong for a 3-parameter tool.

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 the schema already documents asset_id, project_path, and download_path clearly. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but that is acceptable because the schema covers the semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Download an asset from the Asset Library.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling discovery tools like godot_search_assetlib and godot_get_asset_info, and leaves no ambiguity about what action it performs.

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 description provides clear context for the download workflow, including what happens after extraction and a verification step via godot_list_editor_plugins. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the tool's purpose is distinct enough among siblings that the guidance is still effective.

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