uplus_upload_attachment

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It never says whether login is required first, whether an existing attachment is replaced or appended, what file-size constraints apply, or what a successful submission returns — all material for an upload/mutation operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the accepted file types are usefully packed in. It is efficiently written, though the brevity leaves no room for the routing information an agent needs.

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 fully-required, three-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition should at minimum explain how to source the IDs and the auth prerequisite. As written, an agent knows what the tool is for but not enough to call it reliably.

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% and all three parameters (task_id, course_id, file_path) are bare strings. The description only loosely implies that 'homework' corresponds to task_id and 'local file' to file_path; it never says how to obtain the IDs (e.g., from uplus_inspect_homework or uplus_list_homeworks) or what format file_path expects.

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 ('Attach a local file') plus the target ('to a homework') and even the accepted formats (PPT/PDF/ZIP). It does not name or differentiate itself from the similarly-purposed sibling browse_upload, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clause 'a homework that requires an upload' implies the precondition for using it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing away from browse_upload or toward uplus_login / uplus_check_login for auth. Usage is inferable but not specified.

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