Manage Attachments

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

The description discloses behaviors such as absolute paths for upload/download, base64 fallback, soft-delete, and token self-deletion on first GET. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which aligns with delete actions. No contradictions.

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 paragraph that efficiently packs details without fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and action list. Could be broken into bullet points but is still concise.

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 14 parameters, conditional requirements, and no output schema, the description covers all actions, parameter roles, and return behavior (base64 for download, token for mint_token). It is thorough.

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%, and the description adds meaningful context for each action and parameter (e.g., scope defaults to agent, token behavior). It significantly enhances understanding beyond 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 identifies the tool as managing binary attachments (images, PDFs, etc.) referenced from event payloads, and lists all actions. It is distinctive from sibling tools which focus on different entities like panes, records, or events.

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 specifies when to use the tool (for binary attachment operations) and explains each action's context. It lacks explicit comparisons to alternatives but the purpose is narrow enough that usage is clear.

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