kaiten_create_card_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by stating that the operation registers an external link rather than uploading binary data, and it enumerates supported file types. However, it does not disclose other relevant behaviors such as required permissions, side effects, response format, or failure cases.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the operation, and the second adds a crucial behavioral distinction. The file type enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema, which prevents a perfect score, but the overall structure wastes little space.

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, combined with a fully-covered schema, provides enough to understand the core operation and parameters. However, there is no output schema and no description of return values, prerequisites, or post-condition behavior, so the agent is left without a complete picture when invoking the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description mostly repeats the file type enum that is already present in the schema, and it does not add new semantic detail for card_id, url, name, size, card_cover, sort_order, or custom_property_id. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a file attachment on a card by URL.' It clarifies the exact scope by noting that this 'registers an external file link as a card attachment' and explicitly distinguishes itself from binary upload operations. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear even among many card-related siblings.

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 when to use this tool: when attaching an external file link by URL rather than uploading binary data. However, it does not name any alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent must infer the selection context from the phrase 'does not upload binary data.'

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