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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses idempotency on (org, work|project, drive_object), the fact that it does not copy bytes or create a shared file, and that transcripts remain on file_*. This is strong transparent context for a mutation, though it omits permission requirements or failure behavior.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, idempotency/side-effects, required arguments, and alias note. Front-loaded with purpose and no filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description covers the core behavioral side effects and constraints. It remains slightly incomplete as a standalone spec because it never explains what 'attach' concretely changes or what the file_* / work|project notation fully means, but for an agent selecting and invoking the tool it is sufficient.

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 already describes all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful cross-parameter constraint ('Pass at least one of work_id / project_id') and clarifies the idempotency key, which is genuinely additional semantic value.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('Attach an existing Storage object to a work item and/or project') and the last sentence disambiguates from the deprecated drive_attach alias. This clearly distinguishes the tool from storage_publish and storage_unlink while stating its core function.

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 description states the required call shape ('Pass at least one of work_id / project_id') and notes that drive_attach is a deprecated alias, telling the agent to prefer this tool. It does not, however, compare this to storage_publish or storage_unlink with explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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