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

Adds genuine behavior beyond the annotations: no change takes effect until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action is invoked, plus that org admin MCP approval settings are configurable while business workflow approvals always apply. It does not say what happens on a duplicate attach or whether the link is visible immediately, but the approval lifecycle is well disclosed.

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 core action sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the opening 'Use this when working with RetailHardHat documents records...' is filler and the closing sentence about configurable approval requirements is generic policy boilerplate already covered by the approval sentence.

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 gated mutation with an output schema, the description covers the approval workflow adequately, and the schema supplies required fields and regex constraints. What is missing is how to obtain a valid filePath/upload reference, which an agent needs before it can call this 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions changeRequestId or the nested data fields (name, filePath, fileSize, fileType, description). Only the indirect phrase 'uploaded file owned by this organization' hints that filePath comes from an upload flow; the agent gets no guidance on the required name field or the /objects/.../uploads/{uuid} path pattern.

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 second sentence states a specific verb and target: attach an uploaded file to a change_request, which distinguishes it from the many sibling attach_*_document tools. The opening sentence ('Use this when working with RetailHardHat documents records in the connected organization') is boilerplate that adds no discriminating power, which keeps this below a 5.

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?

It implies prerequisites ('an uploaded file owned by this organization') and the approval gate, but never names an alternative or exclusion, e.g. attach_project_document or request_file_upload for obtaining the file. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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