Upload document attachment

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

Annotations indicate it's a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds behavioral context by revealing that tokens expire ('Unbound tokens expire after a while') and advising timely upload, which goes beyond the annotation basics.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence carries essential workflow information. No redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value (attachment_token) and the binding workflow, which is essential for correct use. It omits details like error handling or cleanup, but those are not critical given the schema handles parameter descriptions.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond that, but it does mention file types ('PDF, image, XML, zip...') which coarsely aligns with file_path. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage.

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 tool's function: 'Upload a local file... as an attachment for an issued or received document.' It also explains the return of an attachment_token and its binding role, distinguishing it from sibling document tools.

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 workflow guidance: 'pass it as data.attachment_token in a create/update tool' and 'upload right before creating/updating'. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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