Attach Missing Document

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

Adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing the preview/submit split and warning that submission changes the company's bookkeeping and cannot be undone from this tool. The 'destructiveHint: false' annotation is consistent since the action is additive; the 'from here' qualifier reasonably reconciles reversibility. It stops short of mentioning auth/connection requirements despite openWorldHint=true.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the mode-switching behavior front-loaded right after the purpose statement. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and near-complete parameter documentation, the description covers the essential safety story. The remaining gap is guidance on mutually exclusive input methods for supplying the file and any connection/auth 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 92%, so the parameters are already well documented, including confirm's preview-vs-submit semantics. The description reinforces confirm but adds nothing new for the 11 other parameters, notably the three alternative document sources (file_url, file_base64, upload_ids), which is exactly where prose help would matter.

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 a receipt, invoice or other document') and narrows scope to payments that Wint flagged as missing a document, which naturally pairs with list_missing_documents. It does not explicitly name the nearest siblings (upload_document, upload_other_document, upload_supplier_invoice) to say how it differs from them.

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 splits the two operational modes: no confirm = preview, confirm=true = actual submission to Wint. It gives a clear condition for the write path but never states when to prefer this tool over sibling upload tools, nor what prerequisites (Wint connection, BankID) must be in place.

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