store_download

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond these: it 'reaches an external service over the network' and 'adds new assets to the project,' which clarifies the side-effect profile. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, all substantive and front-loaded. The main action and scope come first, followed by prerequisites and side effects, with the exclusion last. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 network-reaching mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core call requirements: purpose, prerequisite, external side effect, and when not to use it. It does not describe return values, but with no output schema and a clear effect statement, the definition is still reasonably 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond the schema: it refers to the license fields returned by store_get, but the schema already says 'License info from store_get.' No additional semantic value is provided for id, name, or folder.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Clone/import a public store asset into the current project.' It clearly distinguishes store_download from generic download_asset and sketchfab_import by specifying 'store asset' and 'public'. This is enough for an agent to know what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires the license fields returned by store_get.' It also provides an explicit exclusion: 'When NOT to use: for assets already in the project.' However, it does not name an alternative tool to use in that exclusion case, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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