upload_attachment

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations. It states it uploads and returns a markdown reference, but does not disclose behavioral details like file size limits, overwrite behavior, permissions required, or rate limits. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only or idempotent.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately states the return value. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and return value, but with no output schema it could be more complete. It omits details like error handling, prerequisites, or whether the attachment is visible in the UI. Adequate but has gaps.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds context about the return value (markdown reference) but does not elaborate on parameter constraints or relationships. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Upload a file attachment to a repository' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like edit_file or create_pull_request by focusing on file attachments and their use (embedding in PR comments).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or suggest other tools for different scenarios (e.g., editing files directly).

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