add-mail-attachment

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior. The description adds the 3MB size constraint and required @odata.type format, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the attachment replaces existing ones, or side effects. With annotations present, the additional context is modest.

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 includes an unnecessary and confusing sentence about derived attachment resources. The tip is useful. Could be more concise and better structured.

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?

No output schema, but the description does not mention return values or response format. It also does not explain the purpose of the 'messageId' parameter (which is required). For a tool with nested objects and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete.

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 high (75%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the required @odata.type field and size limit, which are not in the schema. However, it does not explain other parameters like messageId, includeHeaders, or excludeResponse beyond their schema descriptions.

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 tool creates a new attachment, and mentions attachment types. However, the phrase 'All these types of attachment resources are derived from the attachment resource' is vague and adds confusion. Overall purpose is clear but could be more precise.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-mail-attachment-upload-session'. The tip mentions a 3MB size limit, implying it's for small attachments, but does not explicitly state this or provide decision criteria.

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