outlook_attach_to_event

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds real behavior the annotations cannot convey: transparent upload-session switching above 3MB, path resolution scoped to `attachments_dir`, deferred delivery to attendees, and the return of new attachment IDs. It stops short of saying whether existing attachments are replaced or whether anything is destroyed, which is notable given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action and the size-threshold behavior are front-loaded. The cross-reference to another tool for path semantics is economical but pushes detail out of the definition.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the size-dependent upload path, path scoping, delivery timing, and the return value. The remaining gap is the destructiveness/mutation semantics implied by the annotations, which an agent would want spelled out.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for both parameters. It partially does so: `attachment_paths` is explained as resolving inside `attachments_dir` (with a cross-reference to a sibling tool for the exact rules), but `event_id` is never addressed. Half-compensation for a low-coverage schema puts it at a middling score.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource ('Attach files to an event') and immediately notes the >3MB upload-session switch. It is clearly distinguishable from the mail-attachment and draft siblings, though it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over outlook_attach_to_draft.

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 mention of 'as for outlook_attach_to_draft' and the note that attendees receive the files on the event's next update implies the event context but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent must infer that this is the calendar counterpart to the draft attachment tool.

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