upload_attachment

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the WRITE_ENABLED requirement and the base64 encoding format. However, it does not disclose other important behaviors like whether attachments are appended or overwritten, error handling, or size limits. Annotations only provide hints, so the description partially fills gaps but remains incomplete.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no extraneous information. It front-loads the main verb and resource, then follows with a use-case sentence. Every word serves a 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 the tool has five required parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain expected return values, error scenarios, or common pitfalls (e.g., what happens if the record_sys_id is invalid). The agent may need more context to use it effectively, especially since the tool modifies data.

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 individual parameter descriptions already exist. The tool-level description mentions base64 encoding, which is already present in the content_base64 parameter description. No additional meaning is added to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool uploads a base64-encoded attachment to a ServiceNow record, specifying the action and target. Use cases are exemplified (files, screenshots, documents to incidents, changes). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_attachments and delete_attachment by its creation purpose.

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?

Provides a general use case ('adding files, screenshots, or documents') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., no mention of when not to use or comparison with similar tools). No prerequisites beyond WRITE_ENABLED are discussed.

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