Create Attachment

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds the success response code (HTTP 201) but does not elaborate on side effects, error handling, or additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise with four sentences, each contributing value: purpose, usage, required parameters, and API reference. It is front-loaded with the key action.

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 creation tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and required inputs. However, it lacks details on the attachment object structure, constraints, and error responses, which would help the agent use it 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 coverage is 100%, but the description for 'time_and_material_entry_attachment' is uninformative (just repeats the name). The tool description lists required parameters but does not explain the structure or expected fields of the attachment object, relying on the schema which is minimally descriptive.

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 for Field Productivity records, specifically time and material entry attachments. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_attachment_project_v1_0_2' by referencing the API endpoint and domain.

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 indicates when to use the tool ('Use this to create a new Field Productivity records') and lists required parameters. However, it does not mention when not to use it, alternative tools, or prerequisites like the existence of the time_and_material_entry.

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