confluence_attachment_download

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses disk write behavior, temp directory fallback, and return metadata. However, it omits overwrite behavior for existing files, error handling, and permission requirements.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, no superfluous words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return metadata (id, title, media_type, bytes, path). Covers temp directory behavior well. Minor gaps: no mention of error conditions or file overwrite policy.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value for output_path by explaining temp directory behavior, but attachment_id is simply restated from schema. Overall marginal addition.

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 'Download a Confluence attachment by ID to disk' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_attachment_list and confluence_attachment_delete by focusing on the download action.

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 provides context on when to omit output_path (file goes to temp dir) and suggests reading the file via the filesystem tool. It references a CLI mirror for familiarity, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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