attach_file

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of 'attach' as a write operation aligns. The description adds context about allowed ownerTypes and an example, but does not disclose further behavioral traits like reversibility or permissions.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a brief example. The first sentence states the purpose efficiently, and the example reinforces without excessive length. Every sentence adds value.

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, and the description does not explain the return value (e.g., what is returned after attachment). The verbose parameter hints at response format in the schema, but the description lacks this context. For a mutation tool, additional info on response could improve completeness.

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%, so parameters are fully described. The description adds value by directing how to get fileId (from upload_file or list_files) and provides an example that clarifies the relationship between ownerType and ownerId. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb 'attach' and the resource 'uploaded file to a Billy record', and specifies the record types (daybookTransaction, invoice, bill). The example with daybookTransaction further clarifies scope. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like upload_file and list_files.

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?

Description indicates how to obtain the required fileId ('Get the fileId from upload_file or list_files') and provides an example illustrating ownerType and ownerId usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear for attachment tasks.

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