nws_preview_attachment_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a preview operation and accepted file types, but it does not disclose whether the preview changes state, what permissions or identity context are required, or how the preview relates to a later commit.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves little structure for an agent needing more operational detail.

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?

With three required parameters, no annotations, and no input-schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input semantics and the relationship to the commit/cancel attachment siblings are missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three required parameters. It only indirectly hints at file_path by listing PDF/JPG/PNG files and a territory map; entity_type and identity remain completely undocumented.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: "Preview adding" an attachment or territory map. It also names accepted file types, so an agent can tell what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from the commit-attachment sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this preview versus nws_commit_attachment_upload, nws_cancel_attachment_change, or nws_preview_attachment_removal. The word "Preview" implies a pre-commit step, but the description does not state that condition or any alternatives.

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