Messages Send Attachment

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

The description provides no behavioral disclosure at all. It does not state that this sends a message with an attachment, that it has side effects, that it is non-idempotent, or that Messages permissions may be required. The annotations provide some hints, but the description adds nothing beyond them.

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 short but not concise in a useful way; it spends its one sentence on provenance rather than behavior. It is under-specified rather than efficiently 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?

For a side-effecting tool with three parameters and a 0% schema description coverage, this description is completely inadequate. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the total absence of functional, usage, or prerequisite information.

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 0%, so the description needed to explain recipient, file_path, and text semantics, but it mentions none of them. An agent must guess that file_path is a local file path, recipient is a contact or conversation, and text is optional accompanying content.

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 merely restates the tool name and its exposure mechanism ('Delegated Apple domain tool ... exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'), with no verb describing what the tool does. It reads as a tautology and provides no functional meaning beyond the name itself.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool instead of related siblings like messages_send_message, messages_reply_in_conversation, or messages_list_attachments. The only usage context is implied by the schema and name, not by the description.

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