presign_event_occurrence_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: event_id accepts multiple reference forms and is resolved to UUID, files expect a specific structure, server enforces caps, and returns presigned PUT URLs with intent IDs. It lacks details on authentication or error handling, but covers the core workflow well.

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 with two clear paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, and the rest provides necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (not shown), the description appropriately explains the return type ('presigned PUT URLs with intent ids') and the two-step flow with 'commit_event_occurrence_attachments'. It covers all parameters and constraints, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for selection and invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains event_id's flexible input formats, specifies the exact structure for each file entry ('filename, content_type, size_bytes'), and clarifies that date is for the specific occurrence. This compensates fully for the schema gaps.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('batch-presign') and resource ('attachments for a specific event occurrence (date)'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'commit_event_occurrence_attachments' (which consumes the presigned URLs) and 'presign_task_attachments' (for tasks), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 implicit usage guidelines by mentioning the server-enforced caps (25 MB per-file, blocked-MIME list, max-attachments) and linking to 'commit_event_occurrence_attachments', indicating a two-step process. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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