attach_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses key traits: URLs are 'downloaded then uploaded', identifier tries item match first then location fallback, and primary=True replaces the entity's primary image. It does not mention return format, errors, or permissions, but the most decision-relevant behaviors are covered.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value. It uses backticks for parameters and a concrete primary-image example, with no filler or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (two target types, URL download, identifier fallback, primary behavior) and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It lacks details like supported file types or failure behavior, but those are secondary; an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description directly explains source, doc_type, identifier, and primary with examples and fallback logic. The title parameter is not explained, though its meaning is likely self-evident. Overall, the prose compensates well for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Attach a document to an item OR a location', a specific verb+resource pair that clearly defines the action. It also distinguishes this from sibling attachment tools by naming the two possible targets and mentioning attach-specific concepts like primary image and doc_type.

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 gives concrete usage context: what source can be (local path or URL), what doc_type values look like, how identifier resolves against items or locations, and when primary=True is useful (wayfinding photos). It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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