upload_reusable_attachment

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the file is uploaded to Meta servers via the Attachment Upload API and that the resulting attachment_id is reusable across sends, but omits lifecycle details an agent needs: expiry of attachment_id, size/format limits, and permission requirements.

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?

A single sentence with the action, transport, and payoff front-loaded and no filler. Every clause 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does mention the return value (attachment_id) and its reusability, which is helpful. It still leaves gaps around attachment_id lifetime and how the ID is subsequently consumed, which matter for a staged upload-then-send workflow.

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%, including an enum for attachment_type, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond it, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload an attachment to Meta servers') plus the outcome ('reusable attachment_id'), which no sibling tool provides. It is clearly distinguishable from send_instagram_dm and the publish_* tools, though it never explicitly names the relationship to them.

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 phrase 'for fast zero-reupload DM delivery' implies this is a pre-step before sending direct messages, but the description never says 'call this before send_instagram_dm' or states when not to use it. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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