add_case_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses atomicity (all-or-nothing) and hints at the 2-hour expiry of temporary attachments in the schema. However, it doesn't cover error handling, authentication details, idempotency, or required permissions. More behavioral context would be helpful.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then key behavioral detail (atomicity). Every word earns its place. No redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the main functionality and atomicity. The parameter descriptions fill in details like temporary ID expiry. Could mention return value, but not critical.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The main description adds complementary context (e.g., using IDs from upload_attachment, types of attachments). Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 tool attaches files and/or URLs to a Pega case, regardless of context or stage. It distinguishes from siblings like upload_attachment (which uploads temporary files) and get/update/delete attachment tools. The verb 'attach' and resource 'case attachments' are specific.

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 explains when to use: for attaching temporary files (via IDs from upload_attachment) or URLs directly. It mentions atomicity ('if any attachment fails, no attachments are added'). It could be more explicit about when not to use, but provides clear context.

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