Attach Source Document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool can 'replace' a document, which is consistent with non-destructive behavior. It does not contradict annotations, but it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or file size limits. The transparency is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and includes essential context without superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the purpose, target entities, and regulatory requirement (RPS). It lacks details on success/error responses or file size limits, but is largely complete for an attach operation.

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 are described. The description reinforces the entity_type parameter by listing the same entity types, but does not add new semantic information beyond the schema. Baseline score 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 verb ('attach/upload/replace') and resource ('source document (PDF/JPG/PNG)') and specifies the target entity types (purchase invoice, sale invoice, journal, bank transaction). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_document but not explicitly from get_document.

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 mentions that RPS requires a source document on every accounting entry, implying when to use the tool. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or mention alternatives (e.g., delete_document for removal). The usage context is implied but not fully guided.

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