chat_upload_attachment

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states upload and send but lacks details on side effects (e.g., visibility, size limits, permissions, or return value). Does not mention that the file is base64-encoded or any restrictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no redundancy. Every word is informative.

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?

No output schema, and description does not explain return value or expected response. Given 7 parameters including base64 data and optional thread, more context is needed for successful 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% with each parameter described. The description adds 'with optional accompanying text' which is already in the schema. Minimal additional value beyond 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 action: 'Upload a file and send it as an attachment to a Google Chat space'. It specifies the resource (Google Chat space) and distinguishes from siblings like chat_send_message (text-only) and chat_get_attachment (retrieve).

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?

Implies usage when needing to attach a file to a message, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., chat_send_message for text-only, or chat_get_attachment for retrieval). No when-not or prerequisites mentioned.

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