download_video

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

With no annotations supplied, the description usefully discloses that the tool retrieves a remote signed URL, validates both the URL host and file signature, and writes the result locally. These are meaningful behavioral and security details, although overwrite behavior, filesystem handling, and possible failure conditions remain unspecified.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the primary action and then presents validation and saving in a logical sequence. Every clause contributes useful operational information without redundancy or unnecessary wording.

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 download tool, the description covers the core workflow and important validation behavior. However, the absence of annotations, parameter documentation, and an output schema leaves gaps around prerequisites, filename and overwrite semantics, and what the caller receives after a successful save.

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%, and the description never explicitly explains either generation_id or filename. It indirectly suggests that generation_id selects a completed video generation and filename controls the local save, but leaves destination-path rules, extension handling, and ID provenance undocumented.

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 and resource: downloading a completed video output and saving it locally. The signed-URL and validation details further clarify its scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as download_image or get_video_generation.

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 phrase 'completed video output' establishes that the tool is intended for the post-generation stage, providing useful context for when to invoke it. It does not explain how to confirm completion or obtain a suitable generation, nor does it identify alternatives for incomplete generations or other media types.

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