task_attach_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, permission requirements, behavior on conflicting parameters, or return values. Parameter descriptions disclose some behavior (e.g., local upload first goes to Drive) but the tool description itself is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No redundant information or 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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't clarify valid parameter combinations (e.g., mutual exclusivity of file_id vs local_path) or expected behavior on success/failure. The full schema descriptions partially compensate, but completeness is only adequate.

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%, so all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds a high-level summary of the two modes but does not go beyond what the schema already explains. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: attaching a file to an existing task, with explicit mention of two modes (file_id or local upload/base64). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disk_upload or im_send_file.

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?

Provides clear context (attach to existing task) and the two modes, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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