growwer_download_order_draftDownload the current draft file for a post order by ID so you can review it before publishing.
Use this when the user needs the current draft file of one of their post orders, to review it before publishing: returns the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a file and that it reflects the 'current' draft, but it does not say what happens when no draft exists, whether the call fails or returns empty, or what format the file is.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the usage condition first and the outcome last; there is no filler. The trailing ': returns the file' is slightly redundant with 'draft file' earlier in the same sentence but still adds the confirmation that a file, not metadata, comes 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?
The tool is simple (one param, no output schema, rich annotations), so the description need not explain return values. However, for a download tool it leaves open the file type/size and the no-draft case, which are the main things an agent would still need to handle correctly.
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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema alone gives no clue what identifier is expected. The description partially compensates by framing the resource as 'one of their post orders', implying the id is an order id rather than a draft id, but it never says so outright.
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 pairs a specific verb (download) with a specific resource (the current draft file of a post order) and states the time in which it is useful (before publishing). It implicitly separates itself from the seller-side sibling by saying 'their post orders', but never names growwer_download_seller_order_draft or growwer_download_order_briefing explicitly.
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?
'Use this when the user needs the current draft file ... to review it before publishing' gives a clear trigger condition tied to the draft-review workflow. It offers no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so the agent must infer that it should not be used for the published order or for the seller-side equivalent from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.