download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: uploading to Drive, folder creation if absent, and return object fields. Missing details like permission requirements, file size limits, or error handling but covers the main workflow.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action, every sentence essential. No filler, perfectly concise.

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?

No output schema but description mentions return fields. Covers main functionality and parameter rationale. Minor gaps: no mention of error cases (e.g., missing attachment) or behavior when multiple attachments without identifier. Still highly functional for an agent.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the schema: explains how to identify attachment (filename preferred), notes it's not required if one attachment, and clarifies drive_folder is created if absent. The message_id is obvious from context.

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 'Download an attachment from a Gmail message and upload it to Google Drive', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on attachment download/upload specifically.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on parameter usage: prefer filename, fallback to attachment_id, and not needed if exactly one attachment. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like direct download without Drive upload.

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