save_attachments

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself—no mention of overwrite behavior, directory creation, or what happens when no attachments exist. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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, grammatically complete sentence: 'Save attachments from a message to a directory.' There is no filler or redundancy, and the core action is immediately clear.

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?

Given the strong schema and output schema, the invocation details are well covered. However, the description lacks routing guidance against get_attachment_content and any edge-case expectations, such as handling existing files or missing attachments. It is adequate but not complete for an agent choosing between related tools.

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%, and the schema itself richly documents all parameters, including the IMAP fast-path behavior for account/mailbox and the 0-based attachment_indices. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond implicitly indicating a source message and target directory.

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 uses a specific verb ('save') with a clear resource ('attachments from a message') and destination ('to a directory'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_attachment_content, which implies retrieval rather than writing to disk.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_attachment_content as the option for retrieving attachment data, nor does it state conditions such as preferring file output over in-memory content. The agent must infer usage solely from the sentence.

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