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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: partial success semantics ('Returns the sources that were successfully added') and a reconciliation step against document_ids. It doesn't cover auth/permission needs, but the partial-failure disclosure is the highest-value trait for this operation.

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, no filler. The action and its limit are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries the one non-obvious detail (partial add results).

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 two-parameter write with full schema coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and an output schema handling return structure, the description is essentially complete. The partial-success note is the key gap-filler; only minor behavioral detail (e.g., duplicate handling) is absent.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented with UUID format and the 1–10 item bounds. The description's 'up to 10' and 'from search-documents' largely restate what the schema's maxItems and descriptions already say, so baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (Studocu documents), source tool (search-documents), destination (a project), and a hard scope limit (up to 10). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like search-documents or create-project without opening any 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?

The mention of 'from search-documents' implicitly establishes the prerequisite workflow — search first, then attach the resulting IDs. It gives clear usage context but names no explicit exclusion or alternative path, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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