upload_task_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions the mutex of sources and the file_name requirement, but fails to disclose important behaviors such as whether the operation is destructive, permissions needed, rate limits, file size restrictions, or what the successful response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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: two sentences that efficiently convey the core action and critical usage constraints. There is no wasted text, and the important information is front-loaded.

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 the complexity of 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits return values, prerequisites (e.g., task existence), authorization details, and parameter interdependence for custom_task_ids/team_id. The description only covers the source selection logic, leaving many potential gaps for an agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of source parameters (file_path, url, base64) and the conditional requirement for file_name. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, which do not express the relationship between them.

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 clearly states the tool attaches a file to a task, using a specific verb ('Attach') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_task_attachments by focusing on the upload operation. The three source options are explicitly mentioned, making the purpose precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage rules: 'Provide exactly one source' and 'file_name is required when using base64.' This guides the agent on parameter selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use list_task_attachments) or mention when not to use this tool.

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