basecamp_upload_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns an attachable_sgid, which is useful, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, file size limits, error handling, or whether the upload is reversible. As a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key return value. There is no redundant information or fluff; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and outcome.

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 tool is relatively simple (3 flat params, no output schema), and the description covers the main purpose and return value. However, it does not clarify prerequisites (e.g., file existence, permissions), how the upload ties to a specific Basecamp project, or when to use this over similar upload tools. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context would be helpful, but the essentials are present.

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% for all three parameters (file_path, caption, file_name), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add specific parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does introduce the concept of an attachable_sgid, which relates to the output rather than parameters. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Upload a file (image, video, document) to Basecamp.' This uses a specific verb ('upload') and resource ('file'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing the returned attachable_sgid for use in rich text, a unique capability.

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 implies the tool is used when you need a file attachment for comments/messages by mentioning the sgid, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like basecamp_create_upload or basecamp_comment_with_file. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named, so usage guidance is only implied.

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