Upload Attachments

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

Annotations declare non-read-only and non-destructive, but the description does not add details like idempotency, error handling, size limits, or effects on existing attachments. The agent lacks critical 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 short but includes a redundant 'Args' section that largely duplicates the schema. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter details already present in the schema.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description omits any return value information. For an upload operation, the agent needs to know what to expect (e.g., success confirmation, attachment IDs). This is a significant gap.

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 description adds marginal value beyond repeating parameter names. The 'Args' section provides a structured view but no new semantic information (e.g., file size limits, encoding requirements).

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 it uploads one or more attachments, distinguishing it from retrieval tools like get_attachment and get_consignment_attachments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from upload_commercial_invoice, which may cause confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or use cases. The agent must infer usage from the parameter list alone.

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