create_attachment

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the base64 prefix constraint and clarifies that the result is a downloadable attachment, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure modes. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not extensive.

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 filler. It front-loads the core purpose and sibling differentiation, then adds the essential encoding requirement in a compact way.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, the key alternative, and the critical base64 input constraint. It does not explain response format or edge cases, but the schema fully documents the required parameters, so an agent can invoke 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 all four parameters are well documented in the schema already. The description reinforces the 'no data: prefix' requirement, but that same instruction is already present in the content parameter's schema description. The added value over the schema is minimal.

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 and resource: 'Attach a file to an IT Glue record.' It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from create_document_image, which is an important sibling. An agent can immediately understand what the tool does and how it is different.

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 explicitly names the closest alternative, create_document_image, and explains the deciding difference: downloadable attachment versus an image in the document body. This gives clear routing guidance and leaves little ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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