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

With no annotations provided, the description carries a significant burden. It does well by stating the 'as-is' copy behavior, the 10 MB limit, that it doesn't read the attachment, the default folder handling, and the no-overwrite behavior with suffix. This exceeds what the schema alone conveys. Minor gap: doesn't mention potential errors or permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and key constraints. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler. It's a single, dense paragraph that an agent can quickly parse.

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 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the core behavior, limits, default behaviors for optional parameters, and where to source the required IDs. There's no critical information an agent needs to make a correct call.

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 only 60%, and the description compensates by explaining that 'parentItemId' goes to the drive root if omitted, and 'name' defaults to the attachment's name. It also tells the agent to get 'attachmentId' from 'get_outlook_message'. This adds value beyond the schema for three parameters, though 'messageId' and 'attachmentId' are still not fully explained.

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 explicitly states it copies one attachment from an Outlook message to OneDrive 'as-is' with specific constraints (any file type, up to 10 MB, without reading it). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'read_outlook_attachment' and 'save_gmail_attachment_to_drive' by specifying the exact source and destination.

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 implicitly informs when to use this over alternatives by mentioning the source (Outlook) and destination (OneDrive). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other similar tools like 'read_outlook_attachment' or 'save_gmail_attachment_to_drive', though the name itself largely disambiguates.

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