ofw_upload_attachment

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate non-destructive). It explains that files are uploaded as PRIVATE by default and how to make them SHARED. This is valuable for the agent to understand side effects. The description does not contradict 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 extremely concise—two sentences that deliver maximum value. The first sentence states the core purpose and return value, and the second provides crucial behavioral detail about sharing. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly explains what is returned (fileId) and how to use it with sibling tools (ofw_send_message, ofw_save_draft). The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The tool fits well within the sibling set, and the description provides enough context for the agent to understand the workflow.

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 parameters. However, the description adds meaningful context: it explicitly mentions the shareClass:'SHARED' option and notes that label and description default to the filename. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's enum and default values.

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 local file to OurFamilyWizard's 'My Files' for attachment to messages. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool ofw_download_attachment (which does the opposite) and specifies the outcome (returns fileId). The verb 'upload' and resource 'file' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before sending a message, with the result passed to ofw_send_message or ofw_save_draft. While it does not exhaustively list when not to use it, the context is clear and it provides practical guidance. A more explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., ofw_download_attachment for downloading) would elevate it to a 5.

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