create_attachment

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the upload-and-reference workflow, the returned downloadUrl, and the required raw base64 format. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences carry the entire message with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the workflow is stated compactly, and the essential base64 constraint is included efficiently.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational details: target record, file content format, and how to use the result for images. Some response-shape and failure-mode details are absent, but the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly for its intended purpose.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters well. The description reinforces the critical constraint about omitting the data: prefix, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a file to an IT Glue record.' It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating it is 'the only supported way to get a picture into a document body,' which makes its unique role unmistakable.

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 gives clear situational guidance: use this tool for attaching files, especially for embedding images in document bodies via a returned downloadUrl. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the 'only supported way' phrasing effectively steers an agent away from other tools.

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