upload_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Returns the File doc incl. file_url') and the is_private behavior, but omits potential side effects, failure modes, or permission requirements. For a mutation-like operation (uploading a file), more could be said about what happens on overwrite or failure, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the core action and options, the return value and is_private default, and the alternative for bulk imports. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids fluff.

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 5-parameter upload tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: return type, the is_private nuance, and a pointer to a bulk alternative. It lacks explicit error-handling or prerequisite details, but for an upload operation with a required file_path, it is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains file_path (local file), the optional doctype/name/fieldname for attachment, and is_private with its default and when to set it false. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not detail exact formats or constraints for name or fieldname.

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 states a clear verb ('Upload') and resource ('LOCAL file to the POS as a File document'), and explains the optional attachment to a document (doctype + name) and Attach field (fieldname). It distinguishes from a bulk import script but not from any sibling tool in the provided list, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 concrete guidance: it notes the default is_private=true and that product photos for WooCommerce sideload need is_private=false, and explicitly steers away from this tool for bulk imports ('For bulk photo+gallery imports prefer the firearm-listing-import script'). It does not, however, compare to alternative upload or attachment tools among the siblings, so the guidance is partial.

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