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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and leaves most of it unaddressed. It never explains that this is a mutating operation, that expectedVersion is an optimistic-concurrency guard that will fail the call on a stale value, or whether attaching to an already-populated view replaces or errors. For a 5-required-parameter write tool with zero annotation coverage, these are material omissions.

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 a tight parenthetical for the supporting example and view enumeration; nothing is padded. The list of view values slightly duplicates the schema enum, which is the only redundancy.

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?

With six parameters, five required, no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the description is the only explanatory layer and covers a small fraction of it. An agent could guess how to call this but could not predict version-conflict behavior or duplicate-view handling.

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% across six parameters, and the description only illuminates two indirectly: assetId (implies an uploaded asset) and view (restates the four enum values already in the schema, adding no meaning). projectId, locationId, label, and especially expectedVersion are given no semantics anywhere, so the most failure-prone parameter stays opaque.

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) and a specific resource (an image asset as a reference plate on a location), and names the source workflow (asset.upload). The 'to a location' scoping separates it from character.add_reference and location.remove_reference. It stops short of clarifying how it differs from location.generate_plates, which also produces plates.

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 parenthetical '(e.g. an uploaded photo via asset.upload)' implies the prerequisite that the asset must already exist, which is genuinely useful context. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no statement about what happens if a view slot is already filled, and no mention of how this relates to generate_plates or remove_reference.

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