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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is signaled structurally. The description adds the constraint that the artifact must be 'current' and names an expectedVersion field, which hints at optimistic-concurrency behavior, but it does not say what is overwritten, whether the prior attachment is replaced, or what authorization is needed.

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 short sentences with no filler; the action is front-loaded and the input hint follows. Slightly more could be said about the input bag without bloating it.

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 destructive mutation with an opaque nested input object, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description covers only the minimum. It tells the agent what fields to supply but not the surrounding prerequisites or consequences of a successful attach.

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 75% and the schema leaves the nested 'input' bag completely opaque. The description compensates by naming expectedVersion and auditArtifactId, which live inside that undocumented bag, so it adds real information beyond the schema — though it does not explain the semantics of expectedVersion (locking/conflict behavior).

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 concrete verb ('Attach') and a specific resource ('current public revenue audit artifact'), so an agent knows this mutates state by linking an artifact rather than generating one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as run_publisher_revenue_audit or get_publisher_revenue_audit_checklist.

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?

No indication of when this should be used, what prerequisite state must exist, or which sibling to choose instead. The word 'current' hints that a fresh artifact is required, but that condition is never made explicit.

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