Upload a file to a document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the act of attaching a file and does not disclose side effects such as replacing the main file, handling multiple attachments, or authorization requirements.

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?

Three concise sentences, each providing distinct information without redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, with parameter semantics and workflow guidance following naturally.

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 core usage and a recommended workflow, but omits behavioral details such as the response format, error handling, and clarification of the `organization` parameter. Given the tool's simplicity, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds explicit meaning to `main=true` and contextualizes `filePath` and `documentId` via the workflow. The `organization` parameter is undocumented but self-explanatory.

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 'Attach a local file to an existing document' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on existing documents and mentioning a workflow with wflow_update_document.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use the tool (attaching a file to an existing document) and suggests a workflow with wflow_update_document. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives like wflow_create_document_with_files, but the usage intent is clear.

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