upload_attachment

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 clearly indicates a write operation to the vault and suggests a downstream embed action, but omits critical mutation details such as whether existing files are overwritten, required permissions, size limits, or error behavior. Minimum viable but with clear gaps.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded. The embed syntax tip is a useful secondary sentence that 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 two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, source/destination, and the post-upload embed workflow. But with no annotations and no disclosure about overwrite behavior, permissions, or side effects, an agent cannot fully predict behavior before invocation.

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 both localPath and vaultPath are already documented with examples in the schema. The description restates source and destination without adding format, constraint, or behavior details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (upload) and resource (attachment) and explicitly scopes the source as a local file path and destination as the vault. It also lists supported file types, which helps an agent distinguish this from note-creation or search siblings.

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?

It implies usage by explaining the post-upload step (embedding via ![[filename]]), which is helpful workflow context. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_note or append_to_note, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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