personal_attach

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior: deduplication by SHA. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether existing data is modified, but the core save-and-dedupe behavior is present.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose. Both sentences earn their place, though 'R12' is cryptic and the terse style sacrifices some useful detail.

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?

With six parameters, one required, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide invocation. It doesn't explain how `node_id` or `document_id` relate to the attachment, or what `mime` should contain.

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 the description only clarifies `data_base64` and `source_path` as alternative input methods. It leaves the required `mime` parameter and the `source`, `node_id`, and `document_id` parameters unexplained, so an agent may not know how to populate them correctly.

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 a specific action ('Guarda un adjunto') and resource ('imagen'), which aligns with the tool name. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the resource and action are specific enough that an agent can infer its purpose.

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 usage guidance by telling the agent to pass either `data_base64` or `source_path`. However, it doesn't mention when to prefer this tool over siblings like `tech_save` or other personal_* tools, nor does it state exclusions or contextual conditions.

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