download-all-attachments

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

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so write-side effects need description coverage. The description supplies real substance: original filenames preserved, non-overwriting default, and partial-failure semantics where successful downloads survive and the result lists both sets. It stops short of stating filesystem permission or auth requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then behavior, then a compact example, then the return shape. Every sentence adds information; nothing restates the tool name or wastes space.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return fields (count, succeeded[fileId, savedTo, size], failed[fileId, name, error]). Combined with the overwrite and partial-failure rules, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the consequence of overwrite=true (existing files are not overwritten unless set) and by giving a concrete example populating projectId, taskId, and saveDir. It also notes saveDir is created if missing, which is behavioral meaning beyond the raw field type.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Download every file attached to a Dooray task into a local directory.' The word 'every' distinguishes it from the single-file sibling download-attachment, so an agent can route correctly without reading either schema.

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?

Bulk-vs-single usage is only implied by 'every file attached to a task' against siblings like download-attachment and get-attachment-list. There is no explicit 'use this when... instead of download-attachment/upload-attachment' statement or exclusion, so selection still requires inference.

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