save_email_attachment

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

Description indicates a write operation to disk and a confirmation return, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the email is altered, file overwrite behavior, or permissions needed). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for main purpose, then a clean bullet-style parameter list, and a return note. No wasted words, front-loaded with action.

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?

Covers all parameters and return value. For a simple tool, this is sufficient, though could mention edge cases like missing attachment or file path existing.

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 lacks descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args' section adds meaning for all four parameters (e.g., account examples, subject_keyword purpose). Could be enhanced with examples or format hints.

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 'Save a specific attachment from an email to disk', specifying the action (save), resource (attachment), and destination, differentiating it from email composition, listing, or forwarding tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_email_attachments or how to handle prerequisites (e.g., ensuring the email exists). Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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