save_attachment_to_webdav

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the configuration source, clarifies the tool's limited scope (choosing only the relative path), and states the overwrite-related failure condition. It doesn't mention return values or auth errors, but it covers the most important behavioral traits.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds unique value: purpose, configuration source, and overwrite behavior. There is no wasted 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?

Given the 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, where storage is configured, the overwrite failure mode, and local-disk avoidance. It doesn't describe the return value or non-overwrite error paths in detail, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it effectively.

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 some context beyond the schema by explaining the server/base configuration and how remotePath relates to it, but it does not significantly expand on the individual parameter meanings already provided in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Save an email attachment directly to WebDAV cloud storage'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like download_attachment by adding 'without touching local disk', making the intended action and target unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for saving attachments directly to WebDAV cloud storage rather than local disk. It highlights the storage server and credential configuration, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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