Upload Attachment

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, and the description adds a explicit warning that the tool creates an attachment, which reinforces the mutating nature. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like return values or permission requirements, but the core side effect is covered. This is adequate but not rich beyond annotation provided.

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 compact, with the purpose stated in the first sentence and the critical constraint and side effect highlighted in the following sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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?

The tool has a straightforward purpose and no output schema, so the description covers the essential action and the critical base64 encoding requirement. It does not mention potential errors, size limits, or success responses, but these are not needed for basic usage. The instance fallback is documented in the schema, so there is no significant gap.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the input schema with detailed descriptions and examples. The description adds no new parameter information beyond restating the base64 encoding requirement, which is already present in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the schema carries the full burden and the description adds minimal extra semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Upload' and clearly identifies the target resource as a ServiceNow record, making the operation unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like get_attachment_info and list_attachments by framing this as a creation action. The base64 requirement is an additional clarifying detail.

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 clearly implies this tool is for attaching files to records, which is distinct from reading or listing attachments. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance. The context is clear and there are no exclusions.

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