Create Attachment

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds important behavioral details: the return value includes an updated item summary with redaction rules depending on the reveal parameter, and that secrets are hidden unless reveal is allowed.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action and input format; the second explains the return value behavior. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (updated item summary with redaction). It covers required inputs, the nature of the operation, and the effect of the reveal parameter. No obvious gaps for a simple attachment creation tool.

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 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds value by specifying that ‘contentBase64’ is file bytes (not a path) and that the operation attaches to an existing item, implying the itemId must reference an existing item. This extra context improves parameter understanding.

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 action ('attach' base64-encoded file bytes) and the target (existing item). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like keychain_get_attachment and keychain_delete_attachment by focusing on creation.

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 implies use for attaching files to items but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as other create tools or get/delete attachment tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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