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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: the requestId retry protocol and the fact that permissions are enforced for workspace, project, and account. This is meaningful mutation-safety context an agent can't get from the annotation block alone.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the requestId protocol, and the description is compact at roughly four sentences. The 'Item updates require the current version' sentence is tangential to an attach operation and reads like misplaced copy, a minor waste.

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 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description covers idempotency and permission scope but leaves resourceId format meaning and any result/return behavior unstated, and its version reference is unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only itemId is described), so the description must compensate. It explains requestId's uniqueness-and-reuse semantics and that resourceId must reference an authorized resource, which helps. But the 'current version' sentence implies a version parameter that does not exist in the schema, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 and resource: 'Attach an existing authorized reference to a project or task.' The scope (project or task) and the object type (authorized reference) are clear. It does not name siblings like resource_detach or resource_register to differentiate, so it stops short of 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?

Gives an idempotency-retry instruction for requestId and points to get_tasks/get_items/get_workspace as sources, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over resource_register or resource_detach, and the 'item updates require the current version' line is a precondition rather than usage routing, leaving alternatives to inference.

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