add_item_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description explains filename auto-extraction and supported types, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or authorization requirements. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, front-loading the action, then providing essential details. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers input parameters, file types, and location formats. It could mention return behavior (e.g., success response), but is fairly complete for a simple tool.

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 100%, but the description adds value by explaining filename extraction, supported file types, and the dual nature of file_location (URL or path), which goes beyond 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's purpose: adding an attachment to an inventory item. It specifies the sources (URL or local path) and lists supported file types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_item or add_item_field.

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 clear guidance on file_location usage (URL or path) and filename extraction, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives context. It does not contrast with sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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