netsuite_attach_file_to_record

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('attach') and required parameters, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether attaching replaces existing attachments), permission requirements, idempotency, or any consequences of repeated calls. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes essential usage context and required fields without redundant filler. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient.

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's relative simplicity (3 required params, no output schema), the description provides solid context: what it does, when to use it (after upload), and what is required. The main missing piece is behavioral nuance (e.g., idempotency, effect on existing attachments), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (recordType, recordId, fileId), achieving 100% coverage. The description repeats these and adds example values for recordType ('vendorBill', 'vendorCredit'), but does not introduce new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Attach a File Cabinet file to a NetSuite record (e.g. vendor bill).' It uses a specific verb (attach) and resource (file to record), and is distinct from siblings like netsuite_upload_file or netsuite_list_files. The examples and required parameter list further clarify the scope.

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 provides direct usage context with 'Use after netsuite_upload_file', which indicates the intended sequence and distinguishes it from the upload tool. It also enumerates the required parameters and their types, giving practical guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools, but the sequencing note is a strong usage hint.

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