save-attachment

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

Without annotations, description discloses safety constraints (allowed roots, path separator restrictions) and the fact that it writes a file. However, it does not mention behavior if the file already exists (overwrite or error).

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (use when, returns, do not use, safety). Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately concise.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the return value (confirmation of saved path). It covers use cases, exclusions, and safety comprehensively for a 3-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 coverage is 0%, so description carries the load. It explains how each parameter is used: id as message identifier, attachmentName as the file name, savePath as the directory, and clarifies the resulting file path (savePath/attachmentName) along with constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes an attachment to disk by message ID and attachmentName, with a specific save path. It distinguishes from fetch-attachment and list-attachments, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (writing to disk) and when not to use (unknown attachment name, want inline bytes) with clear alternatives (list-attachments, fetch-attachment).

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