attach_file_to_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multipart POST mechanics and the docType support restriction, which is useful, but omits permissions/auth requirements, file size limits, and what happens on failure or what the response contains.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then endpoint mechanics and the docType caveat. Dense and mostly earns its place, though the raw endpoint path is implementation detail an agent may not need.

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?

A 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers purpose, endpoint, and the docType restriction, but leaves notable gaps around auth, size limits, and response/failure behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful meaning beyond the enum: purchaserefund is in the schema enum but not actually supported, which prevents a likely incorrect invocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (attach a file to a document) and specifies the API version. It's clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like list_contact_attachments, though it doesn't name any sibling alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides one explicit when-not condition ('supported for all docTypes except purchaserefund'), which is valuable. But there's no general guidance on when to use this vs. other document tools or prerequisites (e.g., that the document must exist).

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