outlook_download_attachment

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: bytes are decoded, the path is confined to attachments_dir, a bare filename resolves inside it, and out-of-directory paths are refused. That path-confinement/refusal rule is not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Purpose and destination are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second paragraph is short and focused on path rules. Slightly more verbosity than needed for the 'same directory for reads and writes' note, but nothing wasted.

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 while the write target and path constraints are covered, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., the resolved path) and how to obtain the two IDs. Adequate but with clear gaps for a three-required-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains save_path thoroughly (resolution rules, bare filename, refusal), but message_id and attachment_id get no explanation of format or where they come from, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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+resource ('Download an attachment and write the decoded bytes') and names the destination parameter, so the action and effect are unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly-named sibling outlook_download_task_attachment, which an agent could easily confuse.

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 use this tool or that message_id/attachment_id must first be obtained from outlook_list_attachments or outlook_read_message. There is no exclusion or alternative routing, only the mechanics of where files land.

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