save_email_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if attachment is not found), permission requirements, whether files are overwritten, or the search mechanism for subject_keyword. This is insufficient for a mutation action.

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 description is brief and well-structured: a concise purpose sentence followed by a labeled bullet list of arguments and a return statement. Every sentence is useful, with no 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return value, which is adequate for a tool with 4 required string parameters and an output schema. However, it lacks details on error behavior, search matching logic, and prerequisites (e.g., account must be synchronized), leaving gaps for the agent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing a clear one-line explanation for each parameter (e.g., 'Account name (e.g., "Gmail", "Work", "Personal")'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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?

The description clearly states 'Save a specific attachment from an email to disk,' specifying the verb (save), resource (attachment from email), and destination (to disk). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_email_attachments, which only 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_email_attachments or other email manipulation tools. The description only lists parameters without context for tool selection.

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