add_recruiting_attachment

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description does not disclose side effects, limitations (e.g., file size), or what happens on conflict (e.g., duplicate names). It adequately states the action but lacks deeper behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and a key constraint. There is no unnecessary information, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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's complexity (8 parameters, union target) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient to convey purpose and main constraint. The schema covers the target structure. A brief mention of target options would be nice but not necessary.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already explained in the schema. The description reinforces the mutual exclusivity rule, but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Attach a file to a Recruiting vacancy, candidate, applicant, or opinion target.' It specifies the resource (Recruiting targets) and that it attaches a file. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_attachment or add_issue_attachment by focusing on recruiting contexts.

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 says 'Provide exactly one of filePath, fileUrl, or data, plus filename and contentType.' This gives direct usage guidance on parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or mention when not to use, but the context and name make the use case clear.

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