paperclip_upload_attachment

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns the created attachment record with fields, and lists specific error codes (400, 401, 404, 413) with explanations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured: one-sentence summary, clear args list, returns, examples, and error handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects, and good annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, usage, error handling, and return format. It is complete for effective agent usage.

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%, so parameters are well-documented in schema. The description adds value by providing examples, clarifying defaults (e.g., filename defaults to basename), and requiring absolute paths. However, the schema already covers the meaning, so slightly above baseline.

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 'Upload a local file as an attachment to an issue.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_download_attachment by explicitly stating 'Don't use when: you need to download an attachment — use paperclip_download_attachment instead.'

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 explicit when-to-use ('attaching a generated report, diff, or log file') and when-not-to-use ('need to download an attachment'). It also includes error handling guidance (e.g., check filePath exists, verify issue ID) that helps the agent decide.

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