ghl_object_update_note_attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required OAuth scope ('notes.write') and API version header, but says nothing about whether the operation adds, removes, or replaces attachments, or what the 'type' field actually triggers.

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 title is front-loaded and the endpoint/scope lines are compact. The 'Version header' and 'source: v3/objects-v3.json' provenance is somewhat internal-facing boilerplate but does not bloat the entry.

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 nested-object mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth and route but omits the semantics that matter most: whether attachments are appended or replaced, and how 'type' (add vs remove) governs behavior. An agent could call it correctly but not predict the effect.

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 100%, including nested AttachmentSchema fields, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the path templating implied by {id}.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Update Note Attachments') and pins the exact endpoint PATCH /notes/{id}/attachments, so the agent knows this mutates attachments on an existing note. It does not, however, distinguish it from close siblings like ghl_object_update_note or ghl_object_update_note_relations, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over ghl_object_update_note_relations or ghl_object_create_note, nor any stated preconditions. The only contextual cues are the endpoint path and required scope, which describe mechanics rather than usage selection.

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