upload_attachment

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

The description says 'the actual file bytes must be sent as raw binary — provide the file path,' but the schema expects base64_content. This is a critical contradiction that misleads the agent. Since no annotations exist, the description must accurately convey behavior, and it fails.

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 brief and to the point, but the misleading note wastes its conciseness. It is structured well enough but not exemplary.

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 description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., an attachment ID). Given the absence of an output schema and four required parameters, this omission is significant. The conflicting input instructions further impair completeness.

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 all parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter details; instead it introduces conflicting information about how file content should be provided.

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 uploads a file attachment for a provisioned user, and explains how the returned attachment ID is used in subsequent steps (e.g., respond_to_inquiry_entry). This differentiates it from siblings like get_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 mentions using the attachment ID later for compliance inquiries, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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