Attach File To Card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the action and the absolute-path requirement, but does not mention file size limits, permissions, overwrite behavior, error cases, or what happens after upload.

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 two short, efficient sentences. It front-loads the core action and then states the key input requirement without any 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description omits important context for a mutation tool with no annotations: parameter semantics for cardId and name, potential limitations, and expected behavior. The description is enough for a very basic call but not complete enough for an agent to anticipate edge cases or parameter nuances.

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 compensate. It only explains file_path ('absolute file path'), while cardId and especially the optional name parameter are left undocumented. The purpose of 'name' is unclear from both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Upload a file attachment to a card.' This clearly states the tool's action and target, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling actions like create_card, create_comment, or update_card.

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 tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond an implicit instruction to provide an absolute path. The description implies the use case but does not explicitly state when or when-not to use it.

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