commit_event_occurrence_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions event_id resolution and the 400 error condition, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., append vs. replace), permissions, or error handling beyond the 400 case. Additional behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a paragraph on event_id resolution, and a paragraph on intents/urls with error condition. Every sentence adds value, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers most parameters and essential behavioral notes, but the lack of explanation for the 'date' parameter and potential overwrite behavior leaves minor gaps. Overall, fairly complete for a 4-parameter 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the flexible forms of event_id, that intents come from a prior presign, and the structure of urls. However, the 'date' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap for a required field.

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 it commits intents and/or URL-provider entries to an event occurrence, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like commit_task_attachments by focusing on event occurrences and referencing a prior presign call.

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 implies when to use the tool (after a presign call) and provides a condition to avoid (400 if both lists empty). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow context is sufficiently clear.

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