swsd_upload_attachment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'WRITE — honors SWSD_WRITE_MODE', which tells the agent the operation is gated by a write-mode setting. It does not disclose failure modes, size ceilings, or whether re-uploading duplicates the attachment, but the write-mode signal is real added value.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the input-selection rule. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

For a write tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it attaches to, which input field to use per transport, and the write-mode gate. It omits return value expectations and any size/format limits, but these are largely inferable from the schema constraints.

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 five parameters are already documented. The description's transport guidance for content_base64 vs file_path largely restates the schema's own wording, adding little beyond the baseline expected when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (upload) plus the resource (attachment) and enumerates every valid parent type, so the agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. No sibling tool performs uploads, so differentiation is implicit but unambiguous.

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?

Provides conditional guidance on which input to use (content_base64 for hosted/HTTP, file_path only on stdio), which is genuinely useful context. However, it gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to alternatives, nor prerequisites such as required permissions on the parent record.

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