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

Beyond the read-only and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses important security and operational behavior: no bytes pass through the conversation, the command never contains a token, and the agent must never ask for one because it comes from the clipboard. That is meaningful context for a setup/help tool.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the call condition and security constraints. It is somewhat dense but every sentence contributes useful setup guidance, token-handling rules, or scope clarification.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations that already declare it as read-only and non-destructive, the description covers what the tool is, when to call it, and the crucial token/security constraints. Nothing else is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 exactly what the tool does: provides the person with the command to connect the pm-files local MCP server for attaching files by path and saving attachments back to files. It names the concrete trigger and distinguishes this setup step from attachment-related siblings like add_attachment and get_attachment.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: call it when a local file is needed and pm-files is not already among the agent's tools. It also specifies the alternative situation implicitly by requiring that pm-files be absent, and describes what to hand the person.

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