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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does add valuable auth context (the api_key must match the one used at assembly time). However, it says nothing about whether re-attaching overwrites a prior jobId, idempotency, failure modes, or the effect on the lifecycle trace beyond the vague 'judge's guidance' phrasing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the ownership constraint and rationale appended. It is dense and largely earns its place, though the trailing 'so the lifecycle trace carries the judge's guidance' is more flavor than actionable instruction.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the core purpose and auth requirement but omits any explanation of the 'id' parameter, the chain_id choices, and what happens after attachment. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to guess at.

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%, so the description must document all four parameters. It clarifies job_id ('on-chain jobId') and api_key (owner-matched), but leaves 'id' completely unexplained and does not decode the chain_id enum values (8453/5042/36927). Roughly half the parameters lack meaning in either the schema or description.

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 description states a specific verb (attach) and resource (on-chain jobId to an assembled hire path), and the phrase 'assembled hire path' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling taifoon_hire_assemble that produces that path. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

It gives a clear precondition ('owner only: the same api_key that assembled it'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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