blackboard_download_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully communicates that the tool writes to disk, supports two attachment ID forms, and defaults to the current working directory. It does not mention overwrite behavior or error handling, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids redundancy and includes only essential clarifications about attachment ID types and the output directory.

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 with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description plus the detailed schema covers the essential usage context. It could mention return values or file-overwrite behavior, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 100% parameter descriptions, including the two attachment ID formats and outputDir default. The description largely restates the schema rather than adding new semantic depth, so it meets the baseline without going beyond it.

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 tool downloads a file from a course content item and saves it to disk. It also distinguishes between Blackboard attachment IDs and bbcswebdav URLs, which clarifies the resource type and sets it apart from generic download tools.

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 provides practical context: it explains the attachmentId input forms and the outputDir default, implicitly guiding usage. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like blackboard_download_file_url or state when not to use this tool.

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