download_image

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. It establishes that this is a read-from-Flow/write-to-disk operation by naming out_file as required, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, error cases (missing media id), latency, or that 4k upscaling is paid — those details live only in the schema property text.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and its optional behavior are both stated before any detail. Nothing superfluous is present.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin: it never states that the result is written to out_file on disk or what a successful call returns. The schema compensates for parameter-level meaning, but the absence of any behavioral disclosure leaves the definition only minimally complete.

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 83%, so the schema already documents media_id, size, out_file, upscale, and background thoroughly. The description only adds the framing that cropping is 'optional' and targets an 'exact size', which slightly reinforces size/fit semantics but does not meaningfully extend what the schema says.

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 verb (download) and resource (an image that already exists in Flow) and scopes it to lookup by media id, which implicitly distinguishes it from generate_image. It does not name the sibling upscale_image, even though the schema exposes an 'upscale' parameter, leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick for upscaling.

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?

"already exists in Flow by its media id" implies the image must be produced first (e.g. via generate_image) and that media_id is the selector, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no guidance on choosing between this tool's 'upscale' option and the separate upscale_image sibling.

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