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

Beyond annotations, it discloses the initial inactive/no-media state, immutability of type once media is stored, and the runtime effect of name, when_to_send, and description on every AI reply. It also explains response message_weight and notice handling, and does not contradict the non-destructive/non-idempotent annotations.

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 text is front-loaded and mostly dense with lifecycle and response details. It repeats the title in the opening line and could be structured more sharply, but no sentence is clearly disposable.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, it covers the full create-to-media-to-activate lifecycle, active-state effects, and relevant response fields. The only notable omission is priority semantics, while authorization details are already in the schema.

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 33%, and the description compensates for key parameters by explaining type's media role and immutability, plus how name, when_to_send, and description affect active AI behavior. It leaves priority undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation is useful but incomplete.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add an AI attachment') and immediately scopes it as a new, switched-off attachment without media. It names the follow-up media and activation tools, so an agent can distinguish this from import_attachment_media and update_attachment.

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 an explicit lifecycle sequence: create, attach media via uploadAttachmentMedia/importAttachmentMedia, then activate with updateAttachment and active:true. It also explains when media is sent and what fields affect replies, so when to use this versus alternatives is clear, with only a minor naming mismatch against the snake_case sibling list.

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