outlook_download_attachment

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

Discloses that it writes decoded bytes to a path, which is a side effect. Annotations mark destructiveHint=false but does not clarify potential overwrite or permission issues. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. Efficient and to the point, though slightly terse for the complexity involved.

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?

Three required parameters and no output schema or error handling. Lacks information on return values, error conditions, or handling of large attachments. Under-specified for a tool that writes to the filesystem.

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%, yet description only mentions save_path vaguely. No explanation for message_id or attachment_id format, or how they are obtained. Adds minimal value beyond parameter names.

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?

Clearly states the action (download), resource (attachment from a message), and destination (host file system via save_path). Distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_attach_to_draft and outlook_list_attachments.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for appropriate use. The description does not explain when to prefer this over other attachment-related tools.

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