create_person_attachment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only implies a write operation via 'Attach' and 'POST', but does not mention authentication needs, idempotency, duplicate handling, validation, or what is returned on success or failure.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, stating the action and resource in the first phrase. The parenthetical endpoint adds useful reference information without extra filler.

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 no annotationsthor, no output schema, six parameters, and nested objects, the description is too thin. It does not explain return values, the purpose or behavior of extraBody/extraQuery in context, or error conditions, leaving an agent with only the schema to understand the full call.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a file to a person' and reinforces it with the endpoint POST /personAttachments. This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like create_deal_attachment by specifying the person scope.

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 such as get_person_attachment, update_person_attachment, or create_deal_attachment. It also omits prerequisites or conditions, such as whether the person must exist or whether the file must already be externally accessible.

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