blackboard_download_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-to-disk profile is partially covered. The description adds that the target is a 'protected downloads folder', useful destination context, but says nothing about overwrite behavior, required authentication, or whether an existing file is replaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 5-parameter download tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits where the file lands, how the four required IDs are obtained, and what happens on name collisions.

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 0% across 5 parameters (4 required, three with ID patterns), so the description carries the full burden and adds almost nothing. It does not explain the courseId/contentId/attachmentId relationship, what filename is used for, or how outputDir interacts with the 'protected downloads folder'.

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+resource+scope: downloads a specific attachment into the protected downloads folder. An agent can distinguish it from list_attachments or download_course_materials, though it never names which sibling handles the broader/URL-based cases.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as download_file_url or download_course_materials, which are close siblings in the same tool family. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.

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