save_attachment

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

The description says 'Save', which implies writing to disk, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction that confuses whether the operation has side effects. The description also does not explain behavior such as overwriting, file naming, or the significance of 'fixed output directory'. Annotation contradiction is flagged.

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, efficient sentence with no filler or redundancy. It gets directly to the point and is easy to 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?

With five required parameters, no parameter documentation, no usage guidance, and a conflicting annotation, the description is grossly incomplete. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational context. An agent would struggle to know prerequisites, side effects, or error handling.

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%, meaning the description provides no parameter explanations. All five parameters (account_id, mailbox, uid_validity, uid, attachment_id) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema field names, which is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct call.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Save') and resource ('one email attachment'), plus the destination ('readNdraft's fixed output directory'). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which include getters, setters, and listers but no other save operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or alternatives. It merely states the action, leaving the agent without contextual decision-making information. Sibling tools like list_attachment_inputs or get_email_html are not mentioned.

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