add_attachment_to_draft

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects (modifying the draft), file size limits, or that attachments are appended. The description gives minimal insight into the tool's behavior.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It fails to convey essential information about parameters, return values, or prerequisites, making it under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is highly incomplete. It omits prerequisites, error handling, result structure, and any constraints, leaving the agent without sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides. While parameter names like 'message_id' and 'content_base64' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description misses clarifying ambiguous fields like 'name' (filename?) and does not explain defaults or constraints.

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 action ('attach') and the resource ('file to draft message'), including that the file is base64-encoded. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like 'manage_draft' or 'get_attachments', missing context about its specific role.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., draft existence) or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'create_draft' or 'manage_draft' might be more appropriate for other draft operations.

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