attachment_save_to_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes/overwrites files, has no side effects on OmniFocus data, and returns a specific success object. It lacks details on error handling or permission checks, but overall provides sufficient behavioral context.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds caveats and an example. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 (4 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage constraints, parameter semantics, return value, and side effects. It is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by including an example call, clarifying mutual exclusivity of taskId/projectId (though schema also mentions it), specifying that destPath must be absolute and overwrites, and noting that attachmentId comes from attachment_list. This extra context justifies a higher score.

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 action: 'Copy an attachment's content to a local file path.' It also explicitly distinguishes from siblings by instructing not to use for listing or removing, and naming attachment_list and attachment_delete as alternatives.

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 usage boundaries: 'Do not use to list or remove attachments — use attachment_list or attachment_delete instead.' It also specifies a constraint: 'Destination path must be within the allowed scope (default: $HOME).'

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