Create a memo attachment by specifying filename and MIME type, with optional base64 content or external URL, to link to a memo later.
Create a new attachment (can be linked to memos later)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | No | Related memo resource name (format: memos/{memo}) | |
| type | Yes | MIME type (e.g., "image/png", "application/pdf") | |
| content | No | Base64 encoded file content | |
| filename | Yes | The filename | |
| externalLink | No | External URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses that the operation creates an attachment and that linking can happen later; it does not mention side effects, how content or externalLink are handled, or constraints on the request. For a mutating tool, this is thin.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a useful scoping qualifier. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a five-parameter input, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits practical context such as whether content and externalLink are mutually exclusive, what happens after creation, and how this relates to the broader attachment lifecycle. It is minimally viable but leaves significant gaps.
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 input schema already documents all five parameters and their meanings. The description adds only indirect context that the memo link is not required at creation time, which is a minor supplement rather than substantial new parameter guidance.
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 and resource: 'Create a new attachment'. The parenthetical '(can be linked to memos later)' also distinguishes it from memo-linking operations like set_memo_attachments, so an agent can tell what this tool does.
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 phrase 'can be linked to memos later' implies this tool is for creating an attachment before associating it with a memo, but it does not explicitly say when to use this over create_memo, set_memo_attachments, or update_attachment. No alternatives are named, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.