uploadAndAttachFile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation (upload and attach), mentions it supports all file types, and creates proper attachments. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, file size limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, file types, attachment type, parameters, returns) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some bullet points, but overall it's efficiently organized and front-loaded with the core 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 this is a write operation with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description does a good job. It covers the purpose, usage context, parameters semantics, and return information. The main gap is lack of behavioral warnings or constraints that would be important for a file upload tool (size limits, supported formats beyond 'all file types', etc.).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all 4 parameters. It explains what 'document_id' represents (RSpace document ID with format examples), 'file_path' (path to upload), and clarifies that 'caption' and 'description' are optional with their specific purposes.

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 specific action ('uploads a file to RSpace and attaches it to a document') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's a 'proper file attachment, not just a link'. It explicitly mentions the resource (RSpace document) and the one-step process nature.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('one-step process to upload any file and attach it to an RSpace document') and mentions supported file types. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like 'update_document' or other attachment-related tools).

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