save-attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions that the tool writes a file to disk, safety constraints, and returns a confirmation. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, idempotency, or concurrency implications, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with labeled sections: 'Use when:', 'Returns:', 'Do not use when:', 'Safety:'. Each sentence is purposeful and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (assumed from context), the description covers when and how to use, alternatives, and safety. It is nearly complete but could add detail about overwrite behavior or exact return format.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaning by explaining that savePath is a directory and the file is saved as savePath/attachmentName. This provides semantic context beyond the schema's type 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?

The description clearly states the tool writes one of a message's attachments to disk using message id and attachmentName, into savePath directory. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning when to use and when not to use (e.g., list-attachments first, fetch-attachment for inline bytes).

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 states 'Use when:' and 'Do not use when:' with clear alternatives (list-attachments, fetch-attachment). Includes safety constraints about allowed roots and path separators, providing comprehensive usage guidance.

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