upload_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explains the action (upload), lists all parameters with meanings, and describes the return structure (status, message, ID). It does not cover potential error cases or permissions, but the basic behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, a prerequisite section, a clear args list, and a returns statement. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, prerequisites, parameter meanings, and return type. It is missing details like file size limits or error handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden on the description.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides explicit explanations for all four parameters (doc_id, filename, content_base64, content_type), adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. It lacks details on constraints like file size or default values, but overall significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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 clearly states 'Téléverse une pièce jointe dans un document Grist', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like download_attachment and list_attachments, making the purpose immediately identifiable.

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 a prerequisite ('list_documents to get a doc_id'), which guides the user on necessary prior steps. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though the context of sibling upload/download tools implies usage.

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