Import Attachment File

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable nuance: 'Overwrite is off by default,' clarifying that the destructive behavior is opt-in via the overwrite parameter rather than unconditional. The narrow input contract is also disclosed. There is no contradiction — 'Import' aligns with a write operation and the destructive hint.

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?

Four short sentences, each with a distinct job: main action, input contract, exclusion, and default behavior. The most decision-relevant constraint (only platform file objects) is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 a 100%-covered schema and annotations present, the description covers scope, defaults, and exclusions well enough that an agent can invoke the tool correctly. The one gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not say what the tool returns on success (e.g., imported path, status, or file metadata) — minor for invocation but relevant for downstream steps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the file contract (download_url, file_id) and the overwrite default, but those facts already appear in the schema with equivalent phrasing — 'Default: false' and required fields on the nested file object. It adds no net-new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Import a ChatGPT Apps SDK attachment into the workspace,' immediately telling the agent what is operated on and where. It tightens scope with 'Accepts only a platform file object with download_url and file_id' and further differentiates itself with 'Not a general URL downloader,' which prevents confusion with any broad fetch-like tool among the siblings.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (importing ChatGPT SDK attachment objects) and an explicit when-not ('Not a general URL downloader'). It stops short of a 5 because it never names a sibling alternative for the excluded case — e.g., it doesn't say 'use bash or write for general URLs' — leaving the routing to an alternative partially implicit.

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