Attach a local file to a task to provide supporting evidence or reference material for the task.
Upload a file attachment to a task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | Task ID | |
| filePath | Yes | Local file path to upload |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only says 'upload'; it omits whether the attachment replaces existing files, required permissions, size limits, or side effects on the task.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words or irrelevant details.
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?
No output schema or return behavior is described, and with no annotations the description leaves out failure modes, confirmation of success, and any operational context for a write operation.
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 descriptions cover both parameters, so baseline is 3; however, 'Task ID' and 'Local file path to upload' add little beyond the parameter names, and no extra constraints or formats are given.
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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and identifies the resource ('file attachment to a task') and destination via taskId. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as list_tasks and get_task.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as task existence or file availability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.