myob_attachment_prepare_upload

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: content_base64 is stored in a pending payload until approved. This goes beyond the tool name, but it does not mention other behaviors like authentication requirements, file size limits, or what happens if not approved. Some context is added, but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first announces the purpose, the second provides essential context about the pending payload. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 5 parameters and an output schema. The description covers the core purpose and the pending-approval behavior, and the output schema handles return values. However, with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, more context is needed—such as what parent_path refers to, when approval occurs, or any prerequisites. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains content_base64 ('stored in the pending payload until approved'), which adds semantic value for that parameter. However, it does not explain parent_path, file_name, business_id, or content_type. The names are partially self-explanatory, but parent_path remains ambiguous and none are fully described.

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 function: 'Prepare attachment upload.' The verb 'Prepare' and resource 'attachment upload' are specific, and the second sentence 'content_base64 is stored in the pending payload until approved' clarifies that it stages content for a later approval step, distinguishing it from direct upload tools.

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 usage by naming the operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the pending/approval flow, which hints at a two-phase process, but it lacks explicit guidance such as 'use this when you need to upload an attachment that requires approval.' No alternatives are mentioned.

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