weeek_upload_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond noting paths must exist locally, it doesn't disclose what happens on failure, whether attachments replace or add to existing files, size limits, permissions required, or the return format. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'Paths must exist on this machine' caveat is a high-value operational detail. Highly efficient.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is close to adequate. It covers both parameters' purpose and a key operational constraint. However, it omits behavioral context like what happens on failure, confirmation of successful upload, or whether attachments are additive, which would help complete the picture for a write operation.

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 50%: paths has 'Absolute file paths' described while task_id has none. The description confirms paths must be local and exist, adding a small operational detail. It doesn't explain the task_id format or validity requirements beyond what the schema's type 'integer' conveys, so it adds marginal value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('local files to a task'), which is specific and distinct from siblings like get_attachment or move_task. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the attachment name and description make the purpose evident.

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 usage ('Attach local files to a task') but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. It does note 'Paths must exist on this machine,' which is a useful operational prerequisite, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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