createDealAttachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a critical authentication requirement (FUB_SYSTEM + FUB_SYSTEM_KEY env vars) and clarifies that the file is 'externally-hosted' (meaning it references a URI rather than uploading content). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic action, though it stops short of describing success/error responses or side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and quickly followed by the key restriction. Every word earns its place, achieving clarity without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple 4-parameter tool with a clear purpose and an explicit auth restriction, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the key constraint (env vars) and the external hosting model, and the schema covers parameters. It does not describe return values, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a straightforward create action, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it.

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%, with each parameter having a brief description (e.g., 'File URI', 'Deal ID', 'File name'). The description adds little beyond these schema definitions, except for the context that the file is externally hosted, which relates to the uri parameter. Since the schema already documents all parameters, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: 'Attach an externally-hosted file to a deal.' The verb 'attach' is clear, the resource is 'a deal', and the object is an 'externally-hosted file'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createPersonAttachment, getDealAttachment, and updateDealAttachment by scope and action.

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 implies when to use the tool (when attaching an externally-hosted file to a deal) and provides a clear constraint ('Restricted - Registered Systems Only'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like createPersonAttachment for person attachments. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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