Download Pinterest images and videos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: files are written to disk at a default path (/root/Downloads/pinterest-mcp/<folder>), resolution falls back to 736px when originals are unavailable, and saved paths are returned. It omits overwrite/duplicate-name behavior, which keeps it from 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?

Two compact sentences with the core action and destination front-loaded, then the return value. Every clause carries information; minor dash/semicolon density is the only cost.

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 4-parameter file-producing tool with no output schema, the description covers destination defaults, resolution behavior, accepted URL types, and return value ('saved file paths'). Only overwrite/naming behavior for repeated downloads is left unspecified.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that image_urls accepts both image_url and video_url (*.pinimg.com) values and explains the resolution fallback semantics tied to the 'size' parameter. The 'directory'/'folder' relationship is only lightly implied (via the shown default path).

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+resource ('Save pin images ... and videos ... to disk') and disambiguates by scope from the read-only siblings (search, get_pin, related_pins, board_pins, preview_images). An agent can immediately tell this is the write-to-disk tool rather than another pin lookup.

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 ('image_url or video_url values from other tools') but never explicitly states when to call this versus pinterest_preview_images, nor any prerequisite such as running a search first. The up-front 'values from other tools' hint is useful but the alternative routing is left to inference.

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