create_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions that the tool 'Create[s] a new attachment' and returns 'Created attachment information', but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too basic for a tool with 17 parameters and no annotation support.

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 appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose, but the parameter list is extremely verbose (17 items). While each parameter explanation is brief, the overall structure feels bloated. The 'Returns' section is minimal but adequate. Some parameters could potentially be grouped or explained more efficiently.

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 complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides excellent parameter semantics but lacks crucial behavioral context. It doesn't explain the return format beyond 'Created attachment information', error handling, or system constraints. For a creation tool with financial data implications, more guidance on validation, constraints, and typical usage patterns would be beneficial.

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 description provides extensive parameter documentation with clear explanations for all 17 parameters, far exceeding the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is listed with a brief semantic explanation (e.g., 'Path to file to upload', 'Type of attachment (invoice, receipt)', 'Country of supplier (DE, INSIDE_EU, OUTSIDE_EU)'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 the verb 'Create' and resource 'attachment', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'upload_bulk_attachments' by focusing on single attachment creation, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other attachment-related tools like 'list_attachments' or 'link_attachment_transaction'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upload_bulk_attachments' for multiple files or 'link_attachment_transaction' for linking existing attachments. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing existing transactions to link, or when this tool is appropriate compared to other creation tools like 'create_invoice'.

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