attachment_create

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: file is embedded into database, mutations do not propagate until sync_trigger, and return value behavior (ownerName null if parent deleted). Size cap and scope constraints are also transparent.

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 a concise paragraph of 4-5 sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding essential details. It includes an example for clarity without being verbose.

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 description fully covers the tool's behavior, constraints, and return value structure. For a create tool with no output schema, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, but the description adds critical constraints beyond the schema: that exactly one of taskId or projectId must be provided, and explains the path scope and size limitations. The example also clarifies usage.

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 verb 'Add', the resource 'file attachment', and the target 'task or project'. It distinguishes from siblings like attachment_add (which is likely redundant? but the description explicitly says 'from a local file path', differentiating from other attachment tools).

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 provides important prerequisites: file path must be within allowed scope, file must not exceed size cap, and mutations require sync_trigger. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like attachment_add or mention when not to use this tool.

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