save_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., what if the directory doesn't exist), or return value details. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is silent on runtime behavior.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable. It is both concise and appropriately structured for its simplicity.

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 tool that performs a file-writing operation, the description is too bare. It does not clarify whether the directory must pre-exist, whether attachments are saved with original names, what happens if no attachments exist, or what the output schema represents. Given no annotations and an output schema, the description still leaves significant gaps an agent would need to handle correctly.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states; it merely repeats the general idea. Since the schema covers parameters well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (save attachments), the resource (message), and the target (directory). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'save_template' or 'email_send_html', so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 implies usage—when you have a message and want to save its attachments—but provides no explicit context about when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., needing a message_id from search results). It leaves the agent to infer usage from the schema and name.

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