save_memento_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool copies (a non-destructive mutation) and requires prior initialization, but doesn't state potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if an id doesn't exist, whether file overwrites occur, size limits). The copy semantics and prerequisite requirement are disclosed, but failure behavior is absent. A 3 reflects that it adds meaningful context beyond the name but leaves gaps.

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, zero waste. Both sentences earn their place: one states the primary action and target, the other provides usage constraints and prerequisites. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but the description addresses the key context: what it does, the user-trigger constraint, and the prerequisite ordering with sibling tools. For a file-copy operation with 2 well-documented params, this covers the essential operating context. Minor gap: no mention of overwrite/duplicate file behavior or id-not-found handling, but the description is serviceable for the complexity level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id and paths) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds the 'exact memento ID' qualifier for id and clarifies paths are 'absolute file paths', but these largely echo the schema. Per the rule, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (Copies), resource (files into attachments directory), and target (existing memento). It distinguishes from siblings like get_memento_attachments and save_memento by specifying it populates the attachments directory of an existing memento. Very specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Only use this on explicit user request', establishing a clear trigger condition. Also names the prerequisite tools (init_memento or get_mementos) that must be called first, providing clear when-to-use and ordering guidance, which is valuable for a tool with sibling tools like save_memento.

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