h1_upload_report_intent_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the precondition 'unsubmitted' and does not reveal side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether attachments are appended or replaced. This is insufficient for a mutation tool like an upload.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and quickly specifies the target.

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 tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the basic purpose and the important 'unsubmitted' constraint. However, it omits behavioral details like maximum file size, handling of existing attachments, or failure modes, which leaves the context incomplete for an agent.

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 only 50% (the file_paths property lacks its own description), but the description adds little beyond the schema. 'Report intent' echoes the schema's 'Report intent ID' and 'local files' repeats 'Local file path' from the items. It does not clarify array behavior, file types, or any other parameter nuances.

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 (upload), the object (local files), and the target (an unsubmitted report intent). It uses a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit or list attachments, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 phrase 'unsubmitted report intent' provides clear context on when to use the tool: only for draft (unsubmitted) intents. It implies a precondition but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would be needed for a 5.

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