Upload attachment

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent), and the description adds real behavioral context: it discloses the return value (the attachment name) and that attaching to a memo is optional. It omits auth requirements and any note about remote fetching semantics, which is a minor gap.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the source modes and the return value are both front-loaded. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what is returned. Six parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the description supplies the workflow link to create_memo, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters in detail (including the filename requirement for text and MIME guessing). The description only echoes the parameter names as source modes, adding little beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource (Memos attachment), and enumerates the three distinct source modes (file_path, url, text). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-side tools like download_attachment and read_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 names the three source modes, which is the primary selection decision an agent faces, and signals a downstream workflow ('for use with create_memo'). It does not explicitly state when *not* to use this tool or contrast it against alternatives such as link_memos.

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