add_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the original PDF is modified, if a new file is created, whether attachments are embedded in a specific format, or any required permissions. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy, making it appropriately concise for the stated 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?

For a tool that modifies PDFs and has no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the default output behavior, the relationship between the input file and output file, or any side effects. The schema helps with parameter meaning, but the description fails to provide the broader operational context needed for safe invocation.

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%, with each parameter (file, attachments, output_name) described. The tool description itself adds no additional detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Attach files to a PDF as embedded attachments' clearly identifies the action (attach) and the resource (PDF), and specifies the nature of the data (files). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools such as extract_attachments and edit_attachments by focusing on the addition of attachments.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_attachments or extract_attachments. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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