add-agent-files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the transport (multipart/form-data), the endpoint, the repeated `files` field encoding, and the security-relevant LFI restriction on `path`. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether attaching replaces or appends to existing agent files.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose, wire format, then the caveat. The `syntx.agents.addFiles` mirror reference is the weakest sentence but still useful for cross-referencing SDK users; nothing else is padding.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no annotations, the description covers invocation mechanics well. However, with no output schema, it says nothing about what is returned after attaching (file IDs, list of attached files) or what happens to already-attached files, leaving a gap an agent will hit after the call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: how `files` is serialized (field repeated once per file) and that `path` triggers a server-side read that fails over HTTP. That materially changes how an agent should populate the array.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach one or more files to an AI agent') and pins down the exact HTTP operation it wraps. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like upload-files, list-agent-files, and delete-agent-files.

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?

Gives real operational guidance: the LFI caveat from upload-files carries over, and `path` is rejected over the HTTP transport, which steers callers toward `content_base64`. It stops short of explicitly stating when to prefer this over upload-files or delete-agent-files, so no full when/when-not matrix.

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