messagerie_joindre_fichier

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context (base64 encoding, 10 MB cap), but omits behavior on repeated attach, whether existing attachments are affected, and permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key constraint (10 MB) is included without padding. Efficient, though very terse.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and partial parameter coverage, the description covers encoding and size but leaves prerequisites (draft must exist) and post-attach behavior unaddressed. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 only 33% (only brouillon_id documented), so the description must compensate. It adds the base64 encoding hint for contenu_base64 and the 10 MB size limit, but nom_fichier remains undocumented and format details for the file name are absent.

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?

States a specific verb (joindre/attach), resource (fichier), and target (brouillon), so the agent can tell it apart from siblings like messagerie_telecharger_piece_jointe or messagerie_enregistrer_brouillon. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with any 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?

The description gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites beyond the implicit need for a draft, and names no alternative tool. It only states the operation and its limits.

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