Prepare Attachment Upload

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, providing a safety profile. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns a signed upload plan and is intended for external byte management, without contradicting the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return type ('signed upload plan' / 'signed upload metadata'). It also explains the workflow context (managing bytes outside CLI). However, it does not elaborate on how the 8 parameters interrelate, though the schema covers individual parameter meaning.

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%, with each of the 8 parameters having a description. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level context, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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: 'Preprocess an attachment upload and return the signed upload plan.' It uses a specific verb ('preprocess') and resource ('attachment upload'), and differentiates from the sibling tool attachment_prepare_download by focusing on upload rather than download.

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 explicit context: 'Use this when a caller wants to manage the upload bytes outside meegle CLI but still needs backend-generated signed upload metadata.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools.

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