Save a report file

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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: it never overwrites existing files, the default destination is the Downloads folder, and it returns the path. This meaningfully softens the non-idempotentHint by telling the agent repeated calls will produce new files rather than clobber data.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; the core action, the safety guarantee, and the return value are ordered front to back.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers action, destination, overwrite policy, and return value. It could note what happens if the report isn't ready or the directory is invalid, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already documented, including the Downloads default. The description only restates the directory default and adds no new meaning about the report_id format or path constraints.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Downloads a ready report and saves it to a local folder'), which clearly separates it from read-only siblings like get_report. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, but the file-persistence framing makes the distinction inferable.

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 implies usage (you want the report as a local file rather than data returned inline), but never states when to choose this over get_report or get_share_link. No preconditions or exclusions are given.

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