Save OneNote images and attachments

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world access, and the description usefully adds the concrete write destination (/root/Downloads/OneNote MCP), preservation of original resolution, and the return of saved paths. It omits overwrite behavior when files already exist at the target path, which is the main behavioral 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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the action and destination, then adds a justification and return value with zero filler.

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 file-writing tool with no output schema and half-undocumented parameters, the description covers destination and return values but leaves selection semantics and existing-file behavior unspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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?

With 6 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not: it never explains the all_images/image_indexes and all_attachments/attachment_indexes selection semantics, or what 'subfolder' defaults to beyond what the schema says. It merely restates that images and attachments are saved.

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 ('Saves') and resources ('original-resolution images and file attachments from a page') plus the destination folder. It is distinguishable from onenote_get_page_image because it covers attachments and writes to disk, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling as the alternative.

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 parenthetical example ('to embed screenshots in a Word or PDF report') implies when you'd reach for it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative such as onenote_get_page_image for single-image retrieval.

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