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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds auth context ('Requires attachments:write scope') not visible in structured fields, plus the single-parent invariant. It does not describe response shape or duplicate-handling, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the linking scope front-loaded and the hard constraint and auth requirement following. Every clause 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?

For a 10-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the two things structured data cannot: the single-parent rule and the required scope. It could optionally note whether the file must first be uploaded via create_upload_url, a minor gap.

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%, so per-parameter meaning is fully documented downstream (baseline 3). The description adds a genuine cross-parameter constraint — exactly one of work_order_id, work_request_id, pm_schedule_id, pm_template_id — that no individual schema property can express.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (attachment record) and enumerates the four parent entity types it can link to. An agent can distinguish it from the numerous other create_* siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Adds the meaningful constraint that exactly one parent ID must be supplied and names the required scope, which are genuine usage rules. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as create_upload_url, upload_file, create_asset_document, or update_attachment.

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