save-attachment

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

With no annotations present, the description transparently discloses that the tool writes a file to disk (destructive side effect), enforces path safety constraints on savePath and attachmentName, and returns a confirmation of the saved path. It does not mention overwrite behavior or permissions, but the disclosed constraints substantially cover the behavioral profile.

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 tightly organized into labeled sections (Use when, Returns, Do not use when, Safety). Each sentence delivers distinct information without redundancy, and the structure front-loads the primary use case.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, return behavior, and safety constraints. Minor gaps such as overwrite semantics prevent a perfect score, but the description is highly usable for an 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?

The schema provides no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by defining all three parameters: id as message id, attachmentName as the attachment name, savePath as the destination directory, and the resulting file path as savePath/attachmentName. It also adds validation rules for attachmentName.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: writing a message attachment to disk using message id and attachmentName into savePath. It names the exact output file path format and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning fetch-attachment for inline bytes and list-attachments for unknown names.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' guidance, naming alternatives (list-attachments, fetch-attachment). This clearly instructs the agent on appropriate conditions and exclusions.

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