add_consignment_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Add') without detailing behavioral traits such as whether it replaces or appends attachments, file size limits, required permissions, or side effects. This lack of transparency hinders safe usage.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, its brevity may sacrifice completeness, making it acceptable for a simple tool but not exemplary.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a tool with two required parameters and no enums, the description is minimal. It lacks context about attachment limits or constraints, which would be helpful for agents. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. While the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (code, files list), it does reinforce the purpose. The files parameter's schema is vague (additionalProperties: true), and the description does not clarify the required structure of file objects, but the agent can infer from the schema.

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 the action ('Add'), the resource ('attachment files'), and the target ('a consignment'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cancel_consignment or create_consignment by focusing specifically on 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or dependencies (e.g., the consignment must exist). Without context about when attachments can be added or whether the operation is idempotent, the agent lacks usage guidelines.

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