Download attachment

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description usefully adds the non-clobbering default ('Existing files are not overwritten unless overwrite=true'), which is the key behavioral risk an agent needs. It stops short of covering permission requirements or error 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the one safety-relevant caveat. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, but with no output schema the description never says what is returned (e.g., the saved path) or what happens if the attachment does not exist or the path is invalid.

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 coverage is 67%: save_to and attachment are documented in the schema, but overwrite carries no schema description. The description compensates by explaining overwrite's effect, so all three parameters have meaning somewhere.

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 and resource ('Save the original file of an attachment to a local path'), clearly distinguishing the file-download action from siblings like read_attachment and upload_attachment. It does not, however, explicitly name or route against those siblings.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when the raw file is needed locally), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as read_attachment.

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