create_attachable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses key behaviors: that without base64_content it creates a metadata-only record, and with base64_content it uploads file bytes to the /upload endpoint, including the max decoded size (100 MB) and the requirement for content_type. It does not cover authentication or error states, but the core behavioral difference is well explained.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately explain the two operational modes. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundant or vague wording.

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 the description does not mention what is returned (e.g., attachable ID, success status, error details). Given the moderate complexity (nested parameter, two modes), the missing return value information leaves the agent uncertain about the result. The description is good for understanding how to invoke the tool but incomplete for full context.

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 description adds significant value beyond the schema, especially for base64_content (explains the upload trigger and metadata-only mode) and content_type (lists supported MIME types and notes it's required when base64_content is present). It also clarifies that attachable_ref is optional. Schema coverage is 50%, but the description compensates well. The company parameter is not mentioned but its schema description is adequate.

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 action ('create'), the resource ('attachable' file attachment in QuickBooks Online), and distinguishes two modes (metadata-only vs full upload with base64_content), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_attachable, delete_attachable, search_attachables.

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 explains when to use the tool (to create an attachable) and provides two usage modes based on base64_content. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives like using update_attachable for modifications. But the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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