send_attachment

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds that it sends to a chat with base64 data, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., impact on chat, idempotency). It provides no new behavioral insights beyond what annotations offer.

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: a single sentence stating purpose followed by a bullet-list of parameters. Every sentence is useful, no fluff. It is front-loaded with the main action and well-structured for readability.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers all parameters and the primary action. It does not detail return values (handled by output schema) or error scenarios, but is sufficient for basic invocation. Could be improved with prerequisites (e.g., 'requires an active chat' or 'use with valid chat_guid').

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter (chat_guid, data_base64, filename, mime_type with default), adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. For example, it clarifies that data_base64 is the file contents and mime_type defaults to 'application/octet-stream'.

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 'Send a file attachment to a chat', specifying the verb (send) and resource (file attachment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_message (text) and download_attachment (receive).

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., send_message for text). It implies usage for file attachments but lacks context like 'use for binary content' or 'not for text messages'. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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