Transactions Upload Transaction Attachment

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

The description adds 'This may create or update Monarch data', which informs about mutation behavior. Annotations already indicate non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false). No contradictions. However, details like file size limits, overwrite behavior, or idempotency are missing.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded. Appropriate length for a straightforward mutation tool.

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?

Basic purpose and mutation fact are covered, but missing details like supported file types, size limits, account linkage, and error scenarios. No output schema, so return value is unknown. For a file upload, this is incomplete.

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?

With only 29% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain required parameters (transaction_id, file_path) or optional ones. The schema itself provides some descriptions (e.g., fields, output_mode), but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states 'Upload transaction attachment' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like download and get attachment tools. However, it doesn't specify what kind of attachment or any constraints.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, expected file types, or error handling mentioned. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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