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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds a real behavioral fact those hints cannot convey: nothing changes until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action runs, and business workflow approvals still apply. That two-phase approval model and the ownership constraint are exactly the kind of context an agent needs before calling a write tool. It stops short of saying what happens on rejection or how long approval takes.

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 first sentence is boilerplate that earns no place, pushing the actual operation into second position. The approval sentences are dense and useful, but the lead is soft and the whole is not front-loaded on what the tool does.

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 no explanation, and the approval workflow is covered well. However, for a two-parameter tool with a rich nested payload and zero schema descriptions, the description omits the prerequisite path (obtaining a filePath via request_file_upload) and any meaning for the optional fileSize/fileType/description fields.

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 nested data object (name, filePath, fileSize, fileType, description) is entirely undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by stating the file must be an uploaded file owned by this organization, which explains the filePath pattern, but it says nothing about rfpId or the optional metadata fields.

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 sentence "Attach an uploaded file owned by this organization to a rfp" gives a specific verb and resource and pins the scope to an already-uploaded file. It does not name the sibling attach_* tools (attach_bid_document, attach_project_document) it could be confused with, so differentiation is left to inference. The opening clause about "RetailHardHat documents records" adds little.

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 gives the operative condition implicitly — the file must already be uploaded and owned by the organization — but never states when to choose this over attach_bid_document or attach_project_document, nor any exclusion. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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