Attach a photo to a created communication using file ID, local path, or base64. Dry-run by default; set confirm to upload.
Adjunta una foto a una comunicación ya creada (ide_comunicacion de la respuesta del envío). Foto por file_id (PUT /upload), image_path local o image_base64. Dry-run por defecto; confirm=true para subirla.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| file_id | No | ||
| image_path | No | ||
| image_base64 | No | ||
| ide_comunicacion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the most important trait: dry-run is the default and confirm=true is required to actually upload. It also enumerates the three accepted photo sources. It omits auth requirements, size/format limits, and whether an existing photo is replaced.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, followed by the input modes and the dry-run flag. Dense but each clause carries information; no filler.
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 5-parameter, zero-coverage, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers inputs and the dry-run behavior but leaves gaps: no return shape for a dry run, no auth or quota context, and no failure semantics. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: file_id (from PUT /upload), image_path (local), image_base64, confirm (dry-run toggle) and ide_comunicacion (from the send response) are all given meaning. The 'o' listing implies the three photo sources are alternatives, though mutual exclusivity is not stated outright.
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?
States a precise verb+resource (attach a photo) scoped to an already-created communication, and ties the required ide_comunicacion to the prior send response. This clearly separates it from the create_* siblings that build a new aviso from a photo.
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?
Explains the precondition (the communication must already exist) and where the key input comes from (the send response). It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.