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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the 25 MiB size cap, that existing plans and review work are protected, that the PDF is stored privately in the connected account, that it does not extract or consume credits, and that the idempotency key should be reused on retry. This is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint (scope, size limit, side-effect safety, idempotency) with the core action front-loaded. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation's side effects and retry behavior. It is nearly complete, only missing light clarification of the project_id/download_url parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains idempotency_key semantics well ('stable', 'reuse on retry') and clarifies the plan source, but never explains project_id, download_url, or file_id, leaving the nested object largely undocumented.

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 (attach) and resource (a PDF as the first plan) plus the target (a new Portravo project), which no sibling tool does. An agent can distinguish it from create_project or run_takeoff immediately.

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?

Gives clear context that this is for the FIRST plan of a NEW project and that only PDFs up to 25 MiB qualify, but names no alternative tool or explicit when-not path (e.g., what to use for adding a subsequent plan).

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