create-file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the operation creates a record in the database and returns Markdown, and it hints at a efficiency preference (filePath avoids conversation bloat). However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or behavior on conflicts, which is a moderate gap 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose and return value are front-loaded, and the preference note is a single additional clause. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple create tool with fully described parameters and a clear return value (Markdown), the description covers the essential points: what it does, how to provide input, and what it returns. It does not detail error cases or the exact Markdown format, but these are minor given the schema and the tool's simplicity.

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 the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds a preference note (filePath over data) that reinforces the schema's guidance, but it does not introduce new semantic details beyond that. This meets the baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('a new attachment file in the database'), and the two input methods (local file or base64 data). It also distinguishes itself from sibling create tools (create-tag, create-book, create-note) by specifying the target resource and mentioning the Markdown return value, making its role 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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: it creates attachment files and returns embeddable Markdown. It also provides internal guidance (prefer filePath over data), but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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