nexus_upload_attachment

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

Annotations already provide readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the actual request type (Apollo Upload multipart), the encoding requirement (base64), and the return shape (JSON attachment object or error string). This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The return format is clearly separated and easy to parse, with no redundant 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 an upload tool with a rich schema and output schema, the description covers the key workflow step (attachment upload before comment mutations) and the expected response. It could be more complete with explicit routing against sibling upload tools, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents filename, mime_type, and content_base64. The description reinforces that content must be base64-encoded but does not add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb ('Upload'), a specific resource ('attachment'), and its intended use ('usable in comments'). It also names the exact transport mechanism ('v2 GraphQL multipart spec'), which separates it from other upload-adjacent tools like nexus_request_media_upload_url.

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 the attachment is uploaded before being referenced in comment mutations, giving some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites such as authentication or file-size limits.

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