Generate a downloadable file within a session and receive a file ID or artifact name for later retrieval.
Create a downloadable file in the session via generate_file (returns file_id / artifact_name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | ||
| arguments | No | ||
| session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the return value but gives no details on side effects, permission requirements, whether the file is stored permanently, or how it relates to the session. The mutation aspect ('Create') is implied but not elaborated.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the core action and return type, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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 tool with three parameters (one a nested object) and no output schema or annotations, this description is severely incomplete. An agent has no way to know what to put in 'arguments', which agent/session to target, or how the returned file_id is used downstream. The tool is under-specified to the point of being unusable without external documentation.
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 0% and the description provides no explanation of agent_id, arguments, or session_id. The arguments object is a free-form container with no guidance on required fields, file content format, or filename handling. This is a critical gap for a tool whose purpose depends entirely on its parameters.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a downloadable file in the session') and mentions the return value (file_id / artifact_name). It distinguishes the tool from file-listing or sharing siblings, but doesn't explicitly call out alternatives, so it's not a perfect 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other file-related tools (e.g., file_share_link, file_load_context). It doesn't state any prerequisites or scenarios where this should be preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.