devbook_upload_attachment

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure for a write operation. It says nothing about permissions or ownership requirements, size or count limits, whether uploading duplicates or replaces existing attachments, whether the operation is reversible, or what the call returns (e.g., attachment IDs). Only the local-path vs. base64 choice is disclosed, which is really parameter detail rather than behavioral context.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the input-mode detail after. No padding or redundancy; the only missed opportunity is that the parenthetical repeats schema-level information rather than adding new context.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. An agent does not learn what happens after upload (returned identifiers, attachment ordering), what failures to expect, or any limits — all of which matter for correct invocation and follow-up calls.

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%, with both prompt_id and the nested files fields documented in the schema itself. The description's parenthetical ('accepts local file paths or base64 data') mirrors what the schema already explains, adding no new constraints or format detail such as the filename-required-with-base64 rule.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('Upload one or more files to attach to a prompt in Devbook') and clarifies scope with the parenthetical about accepted input forms. An agent can distinguish this from devbook_list_attachments or devbook_delete_attachment by the verb alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'to attach to a prompt' implies the usage context, and the parenthetical signals two input modes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., prompt must exist, ownership requirements), and no mention of how this relates to listing or deleting attachments afterwards.

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