add_attachments_to_message

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, which the description aligns with by implying a mutation ('add attachments'). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, specifying required inputs but not detailing effects like whether attachments are appended or replaced, or any rate limits.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, using two sentences efficiently. However, the second sentence is somewhat redundant, restating prerequisites already implied, which slightly reduces conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or how attachments are handled (e.g., file types, size limits). Given the complexity and sibling tools, more context is needed for effective use.

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 50%, with only the 'links' parameter described. The description mentions 'message id' and 'attachments', which map to 'id' and 'links' parameters, adding some meaning but not compensating fully for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 ('add attachments') and target resource ('to a message'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_conversation_message' or 'create_direct_message' that might also handle attachments, missing explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions prerequisites (message id and attachments) but doesn't clarify scenarios like adding attachments to existing messages versus creating new ones with attachments, nor does it reference sibling tools for context.

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