gmail_save_attachment_to_drive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one real precondition (with neither selector, the thread must have exactly one attachment), but is silent on permission/scoping needs, whether the attachment is copied or moved, whether an existing Drive file is overwritten, and what a success response looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and destination, then the disambiguation rule. Nothing is redundant and the parenthetical tile reference is brief enough to be harmless context.

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 10-parameter mutation-with-side-effect tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the attachment-selection mechanics. It says nothing about the outcome, error cases (other than the implied not_found via expect_subject), or destination behavior for `path`/`title` beyond what the schema already states.

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 would be 3, but the description adds genuine semantics the schema lacks: `name` matching is a case-insensitive substring, and the two selectors are mutually alternative with a defined fallback when both are omitted. The remaining eight parameters are covered only by the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb and object (save an attachment of a conversation into Google Drive) with the target UI action, so the resource and effect are unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (gmail_download_attachment) or explain the difference, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives a clear selection rule between `name` and `attachment_index` and states the fallback case (exactly one attachment), which is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over gmail_download_attachment or drive_upload, nor any prerequisites or failure conditions beyond the one-attachment rule.

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