Upload attachment to a scenario

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

The description adds critical behavioral details not in the annotations: the requirement for operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and the potential side effects (notifying recipients or changing tenant data). This complements the destructiveHint:true annotation with specifics about what actions might be triggered, making the tool's impact clearer to the agent.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core action and endpoint, then clarifying the upload method and required permissions. Every sentence adds value, though the reference to 'C13' could be seen as an unclear pointer. It avoids fluff while providing necessary warnings.

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 (multipart upload, nested objects, required confirm) and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: endpoint, file source, body fields, and prerequisites. It does not detail the response format or error handling, which might be expected for a write operation, but it addresses the key risks and usage context.

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 40%, and the description explicitly mentions body fields (file, fileName) and the confirm parameter's requirement, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not explain the 'upload' object structure or the 'path' object, leaving some gaps that the schema partially addresses. The description helps but doesn't fully compensate for the low 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 clearly states the action ('Upload attachment to a scenario') with the exact API endpoint and HTTP method, distinguishing it from the sibling 'xmatters_upload_an_attachment' by specifying the scenario context. It also clarifies the file upload mechanism, ensuring the agent understands the multipart/form-data requirement.

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 explicit guidance on file handling (MCP file input rather than filesystem path) and references 'C13' for additional context, which helps in determining when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'xmatters_upload_an_attachment'.

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