Add File Attachment To Event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions the size limit and base64 encoding, but does not describe the expected outcome (append vs replace), error handling for oversized files, permission requirements, or side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loading the essential English statement and appending a Chinese translation that aids non-English users. There is no wasted information; every word contributes to clarity.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the presence of sibling tools for attachments (mail_add_file_attachment, calendar_list_attachments, etc.), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on prerequisites, relationship to other attachment tools, and inline attachment behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reiterates the base64/size constraint already present in the contentBase64 field, adding no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Add a base64-encoded file under 3 MB to a calendar event.' It specifies the resource (calendar event) and the operation (add file attachment), distinguishing it from email attachment tools like mail_add_file_attachment because of the explicit 'calendar event' scope.

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 implies its use case—adding attachments to calendar events—but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as mail_add_file_attachment. The Chinese intents are simple translations, not usage context. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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