Save attachments to a folder

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: notes are never mutated, existing files are never overwritten, name collisions get a " (2)" suffix, and files whose contents already exist are skipped — explaining *how* idempotentHint=true is achieved rather than restating it. It also documents the dry-run semantics of check_only, which no annotation covers.

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 tightly packed sentences: what it does first, when to use it second, safety/overwrite/check_only behavior third. Every clause carries distinct information and nothing is repeated.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers safety, deduplication, collision handling and the dry-run mode, which is most of what an agent needs. It is slightly thin on what a call actually reports back (especially for check_only) beyond "it says which files are already there".

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 all three parameters (including nested id/file/name) are already documented with examples, defaults and constraints. The description's contribution — "under names you choose" and the continued-job rationale for check_only — largely echoes what the schema already says, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (save copies), a specific resource (photos and PDFs attached to notes, with examples like invoices and receipts), and a specific destination (a folder inside the user's Save folder, under caller-chosen names). This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings (get_attachment, read_note) which fetch content rather than copying it into a folder.

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?

"Use it only when the user asks to save, collect or organise files" gives an explicit trigger and an implicit exclusion, plus a described workflow for the check_only pre-pass. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. get_attachment for merely reading an attachment), so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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