Attach Document

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds details about the storage path pattern and mutual exclusivity of input modes, providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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, comprising two sentences. The first covers purpose, the second covers input modes and storage path. Could benefit from structured formatting (e.g., bullet points), but it 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?

With 9 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description covers input modes and storage path but omits descriptions for many parameters and does not explain return behavior or error handling. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the three file input modes and the storage path, but many parameters (type, label, amount, filename, record_id, document_date) are not described, leaving significant gaps.

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 action (attaching a supporting document) and the target resources (charge, mobilier, poste de travaux). It also specifies three mutually exclusive input modes, distinguishing it from siblings like delete_document or export_documents.

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?

It explains when to use each input mode (file_base64, file_path, file_url) and mentions a prerequisite for file_path (MCP_FILE_PATH_PREFIX). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives, the context of the tool's purpose is clear.

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