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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the non-publishing scope, that existing name and notes are preserved untouched, and that the result is read back and reported as attach_verified rather than assumed. That is exactly the mutation-safety context an agent needs before a write call.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and sequencing constraint, then the identification modes, then the side effects, then the exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does ('returns attach_verified plus the attached version codes'). Combined with the pipeline placement and the non-publishing scope, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all eight parameters and the baseline applies. The description only restates the artifact_id/version_code lookup pair and adds that the lookup runs against the app's processed artifacts; it adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource (attach an already-uploaded artifact to a release) and immediately positions it in the pipeline between upload_bundle and start_rollout. The 'uploading a bundle does NOT attach it' line eliminates the most likely confusion with its closest sibling.

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?

Explicitly says when it is required ('without this the release has no artifact and start_rollout refuses'), names the alternative for publishing (start_rollout), and adds a 'confirm with the user first' guardrail. There is no ambiguity about when to pick this tool versus upload_bundle or start_rollout.

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