create_attachment

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that the file must be passed as base64 without a data: prefix. It also clarifies the resulting artifact is a downloadable attachment, not an embedded image. Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature needs no further emphasis.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the sibling contrast and the one crucial input caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple create operation with a complete schema and annotations, the description is adequately complete. It covers the core purpose, the main alternative, and the critical base64 formatting detail. It does not mention file size limits or response format, but these are not required for tool selection and no output schema is provided.

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 four parameters are already documented. The description's base64 note restates what the schema's content field already says, adding no meaningful new parameter-level information. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a file to an IT Glue record.' It then explicitly distinguishes itself from create_document_image by contrasting a downloadable attachment with an in-body image, making the tool's purpose clear relative to a close sibling.

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 names the key alternative (create_document_image) and states the difference: this tool adds a downloadable attachment, whereas the sibling adds an image in the document body. This effectively tells an agent when to choose this tool, though it does not explicitly phrase it as a conditional 'use this when' statement.

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