upload_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It confirms a mutation (upload) but lacks details on file size limits, allowed types, overwrite behavior, error handling, or permissions. Only basic return info is given.

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 sentences, no redundant phrasing, directly conveys the core action and return value. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema not detailed in the input, the description is too minimal. It lacks completeness about constraints, error conditions, or preconditions.

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 0%, and the description does not clarify the three parameters (name, card_id, file_path). For example, what does 'name' do? Is 'file_path' an absolute path? How to specify the file? No additional meaning provided.

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), resource (local file), and destination (Trello card), and distinguishes from siblings like download_attachment or delete_attachment. It also specifies the return values (id, name, url).

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 does not differentiate this tool from the sibling 'create_attachment' (which also creates attachments) or provide conditions for use. No guidance on when to use vs. alternatives.

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