add_task_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that file_path is uploaded to Votel storage, but does not disclose what happens if both file_path and url are provided, whether existing attachments are replaced, return values, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two focused sentences plus an example, with the main action front-loaded. It is concise and without fluff, though the example is somewhat redundant with the preceding sentence.

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 covers the core purpose and both input modes, but lacks details on edge cases, response format, and error handling. Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explicitly stating 'either...or' between file_path and url, and clarifying that file_path uploads to Votel storage, which enriches the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 starts with 'Attach a file to a task' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like upload_file or remove_task_attachment by specifying the task attachment context, and includes the two input modes (local file_path or url) with an example.

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 clear context on how to use the tool via 'Provide either a local file_path... or a pre-hosted url' and includes an example. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but for this simple attachment tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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