Download a client file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the operation writes to a local file (a side effect outside the API), but says nothing about where the file lands, whether it overwrites, or how large downloads behave. Given annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is arguably too short for a download tool whose output destination is ambiguous, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 only two fully documented parameters and annotations carrying the safety profile, the definition is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is what the agent gets back and where the local file is written, plus how this differs from document_download — meaningful for an agent choosing between two download-style 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%, so customerId and attachedFileId are already documented with patterns and required status. The phrase 'attached to a client card' weakly reinforces the relationship between the two ids, but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb ('saves') and resource ('a file attached to a client card'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling document_download, which by name alone could be the tool an agent reaches for when a file is involved.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative document_download. The only implicit signal is 'attached to a client card', which an agent must infer means customer-card attachments rather than generic documents.

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