ofw_upload_attachment

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

The description discloses default privacy (PRIVATE), the ability to share via shareClass, and the return value (fileId). Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, so the description adds useful behavioral context, though it omits details like file size limits or synchronous behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or wasted 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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description adequately explains the upload purpose, return value usage, and key parameter behavior. It connects to sibling tools for downstream attachment use. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites are acceptable for this scope.

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 clear parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting tilde expansion for path and reinforcing the default shareClass, providing extra semantic guidance.

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 message attachment, specifies the returned fileId, and distinguishes from sibling tools like ofw_send_message and ofw_save_draft by explaining how the fileId is used.

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 tells when to use the tool (before sending or drafting a message) and explains optional parameters like shareClass for sharing with co-parents. It does not list explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tools.

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