create_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical truncation bug with large payloads, explains that the server reads the file itself, notes type detection via magic bytes, and describes security restrictions (HTTP refused, redirects not followed, private addresses blocked). This is exemplary transparency.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with every sentence providing critical information. It is front-loaded with the most important instruction (path or URL, not data) and logically flows through constraints, rationale, and return value usage.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers return values (attachmentId, markdownRef), usage with downstream tools, accepted formats, size limits, and failure cases. It provides complete operational context without relying on structured annotations.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial value beyond schema: it explicitly warns not to pass image data, explains the truncation rationale, and clarifies that contentLength and sha256 are facts about the source file. The caption is given extra context about its use in fallback display, enriching the schema's basic description.

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 an image for embedding in a Meet Rupert document, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling attachment tools (list, download, delete) and is unambiguous about its core function.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: pass a file path or HTTPS URL, not image data; explains accepted types and size limit; and states that non-image files cannot be attached. Clearly indicates how the returned markdownRef is used with create_document/update_document, giving practical context.

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