attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'list' shows existing attachments, 'create' attaches by URL, and 'upload' sends base64-encoded content, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention permissions, potential side effects, error behavior, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with both read and write actions.

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, tightly structured sentence that leads with the tool's purpose and immediately enumerates the three actions. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted words or redundant 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 three actions, the description adequately covers what each action does, and the schema covers parameter requirements. It lacks output/return details and broader behavioral context, but given the tool's moderate complexity and strong schema coverage, it is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, with descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Required for create: the public URL' and 'Required for upload: base64-encoded file content'). The description's mention of 'attach by URL' and 'base64-encoded' adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 begins with a clear action-resource pairing: 'Manage attachments on ClickUp tasks.' It then enumerates three distinct modes (list, create, upload) with specific meanings, distinguishing it from other tools and clarifying scope.

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 specific guidance on which action to use: 'Use list to see existing attachments, create to attach by URL, or upload to upload a file (base64-encoded).' This gives clear context for the tool's actions, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools.

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