Create IT Glue Attachment

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds behavioral context: max file size of 25 MB, explanation of how file_name is inferred, and the constraint that file_path works only with stdio transport. No contradictions with annotations.

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 (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It efficiently covers key constraints and usage notes.

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 7 parameters, 2 required, and no output schema, the description covers usage well but lacks information about the return value or error states. It does not explain what happens on a successful attachment (e.g., response format) or how to handle failures. The schema and annotations partially compensate, but some context is 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it clarifies that exactly one image source must be provided, explains that content_base64 can include a data URI prefix, that the server fetches and encodes the url, and that file_name extension is important for type detection. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('attach') and resource ('record'), lists example record types (documents, flexible assets, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like itglue_create_document by clearly stating it adds attachments to existing records.

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 explicit guidance on how to use the tool: specify exactly one image source among content_base64, url, or file_path, and provide a file name with extension. It also notes that file_name can be inferred and that file_path is for stdio only. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like listing or deleting attachments.

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