download-bytes-to-file

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: writes to an absolute outputPath, never overwrites an existing file, and returns specific fields. It also clarifies that it handles authenticated content. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint likely refers to no modification of source).

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 well-structured, starting with core functionality, then use cases, constraints, and guidance. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Could be streamlined, but overall effective.

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 complexity of downloading authenticated byte content, the description is comprehensive. It covers use cases, constraints (no overwrite, absolute path), return format, and sibling tool guidance. No output schema exists, but the description mentions return fields. The tool's role is fully explained.

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?

The schema covers both parameters with descriptions, but the tool description adds meaningful detail: for 'target', it lists common paths and caveats (e.g., meeting recordings should use get-meeting-recording-content if available); for 'outputPath', it clarifies absolute path requirement, parent directory existence, and no-overwrite policy. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage, but extra context justifies a 4.

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 identifies the tool as writing authenticated Microsoft Graph byte content to a local file, returning specific fields. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'download-bytes' (which returns base64) and 'get-download-url' (which returns a URL), and lists specific use cases (mail attachments, meeting recordings, profile photos, Teams hosted content).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool and when to prefer alternatives. It notes that get-download-url is preferred for OneDrive/SharePoint content and that this tool is the only way to save mail attachments and meeting recordings. It also mentions that the tool is only available in stdio mode, not over HTTP.

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