ghl_conversation_upload_file_attachments

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

Discloses that the binary file is not represented in the JSON schema, lists allowed file types, mentions OAuth scopes, and specifies the endpoint and version. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with the key point ('multipart/form-data upload'), then explaining schema limitations, listing file types, and providing endpoint/OAuth info. Efficient use of text, slightly verbose but each part adds value.

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?

Covers input format, required fields, allowed file types, authentication, endpoint, and return value ('object with URLs'). No output schema, but description compensates. Complete for a file upload tool.

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 descriptions, but the description adds critical information: the need to attach a separate multipart part 'fileAttachment' (buffer) which is not in the schema. Also lists allowed file types. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 is for uploading file attachments to a conversation, specifying multipart/form-data format, required fields, and allowed file types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the upload aspect and the constraints of the API.

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 context on when to use this tool (for uploading files as multipart) and lists allowed file types, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ghl_conversation_add_message_attachments or ghl_conversation_add_outbound_message. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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