Upload inquiry attachment

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'register inquiry attachment.' It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, request format, or response behavior, leaving the agent to infer only that it is a write operation.

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 short phrase, which is concise but underspecified. It largely restates the title in Japanese without adding operational detail, so it does not earn its place as a functional description.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanation, the description is factually incomplete. An upload tool with a free-form body parameter needs at least guidance on request structure or content type, which is entirely missing.

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 sole parameter 'body' is an unconstrained object with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what fields or structure the body should have, making it impossible to construct a valid request from the description alone.

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 '問い合わせ添付ファイル登録' clearly states the action (register/upload) and resource (inquiry attachment), matching the tool's purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'rms_inquiry_attachment_get', but the contrast is implied by the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or caveats. It is purely descriptive without actionable usage instructions.

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