Приложить файл к рассылке

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the safety bar is low. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — attachment is only permitted while the broadcast is a draft or not started. It omits any note on permissions, replacement semantics, or the non-idempotent behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; verb and object come first. It is arguably terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits success/error behavior, whether an existing attachment is replaced, and permission requirements, leaving gaps for an agent handling failure cases.

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 100% and every parameter is documented there, including the 20 MiB size limit and MIME auto-detection. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (attaches), a specific resource (a local file), and a precise target (a broadcast). The scope qualifier 'draft or not-yet-started broadcast' clearly separates it from broadcasts_detach and broadcasts_start, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'к черновику или ещё не начавшейся рассылке' acts as a clear precondition: the broadcast must not yet be running. This tells the agent when the tool is valid, but it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not guidance.

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