download_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses key traits: it writes to local disk, defaults to a temp path, overwrites when no path is given, returns the saved path, and warns that attachment content is untrusted. It does not describe authentication or permission requirements, but the core mutation and overwrite behavior is clear.

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 three tight sentences, front-loading the primary action and then adding the default path/overwrite behavior and the untrusted-content warning. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, where it saves by default, that it returns the saved path, and that attachment data is untrusted. It stops short of describing authentication prerequisites or failure cases, but it is sufficiently complete for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema by explaining the default save location when path is omitted and the default overwrite behavior, which are important for invoking the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: save one Gmail message or draft attachment to local disk and return the saved path. It also scopes the operation to one attachment, distinguishing it from broader email-reading tools and generic file 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?

The usage is implied by 'Save one attachment of a Gmail message or draft to the local disk,' but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as read_email, read_draft, or download_file. An agent can infer the context, but the routing is not explicitly stated.

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