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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaning beyond them: the file stays inside the job, no external party is notified, and the tag must match an existing company tag. That containment and constraint context reduces agent uncertainty for a write operation.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and stays to a few sentences. There is mild redundancy between 'Add a photo or video' and 'Adds one photo or video to the job file,' but no padding that obscures the key facts.

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?

No output schema, but the description discloses the return (the new ID), the auth requirement, the tag constraint, and the side-effect scope. Annotations carry the safety profile. Relatively complete for a single-attachment upload 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 the schema already documents job_id, file_url, tag, and description. The description restates the tag constraint ('must be one of your company photo and video tags') but adds no syntax, format, or size/type detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for full-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Add a photo or video to the job file.' It names the target (job file), the artifact (photo/video), and the optional metadata (tag, description). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like acculynx_get_job or acculynx_list_jobs immediately.

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?

Gives preconditions (tag must be a company photo/video tag; needs an API key with app access) and notes the action is contained ('nothing is sent to anyone'). However, it never states when to use this versus alternatives or when-not-to-use, leaving usage implied rather than directed.

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