outlook_download_attachment

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

Annotations only give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false); the description adds real context the annotations cannot: bytes are decoded before writing, save_path is sandboxed to attachments_dir, and out-of-directory paths are refused. It stops short of auth requirements or overwrite/error behavior, but the write-scope disclosure is substantive.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the save_path constraints following. All sentences carry information, though the path-sandboxing detail is slightly belabored.

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 3-required-param mutation with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the save_path behavior is well covered, but the two identifier parameters and the failure/overwrite outcome are left unspecified, leaving gaps for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all three parameters, but it only explains save_path (bare filename resolution, sandbox refusal). message_id and attachment_id remain entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 (Download) and resource (an attachment) plus the concrete effect (write decoded bytes to save_path on the host). This differentiates it cleanly from siblings like outlook_list_attachments (read metadata) and outlook_attach_to_draft (upload direction).

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 never says when to prefer this tool or how to obtain message_id/attachment_id (e.g. via outlook_list_attachments), nor any exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb, with no explicit routing guidance.

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