attach_file_to_transaction

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

The description discloses the critical behavior that the file is read from the local filesystem of the host, which is not obvious from annotations or schema. It also mentions size and type limits. However, it does not describe what happens if the file is missing or if the operation is repeated.

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 two sentences with no filler: first sentence states purpose and constraints, second clarifies filesystem. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description lacks information about return values or confirmation of success. Given no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the outcome. However, it does cover constraints and behavior adequately for a mutation tool.

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?

While the input schema has 100% coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that the file_path is local, and specifying allowed content types and the 10MB limit, which are not in 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 (attach a file), the target resource (transaction), and key constraints (max 10MB, allowed MIME types, local filesystem). This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_transaction_attachment.

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 when to use (when you need to attach a file to a transaction) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (transaction must exist), or alternatives like using a URL attachment.

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