Add Attachments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real behavioral context — that paths are bound by an input root policy — which is not derivable from annotations. It still omits what happens on partial failure or whether existing attachments are replaced.

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 operative behaviour first and the constraint after; no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a six-parameter mutation tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a six-parameter destructive-adjacent mutation with 0% parameter coverage the description is far too thin. The agent cannot determine how to populate the join fields or what a failed batch means.

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% and there are 6 parameters (5 required), yet the description only loosely gestures at 'match table' and 'path'. The critical join semantics — in_join_field, match_join_field, match_path_field, dataset_path — are undocumented in both description and schema, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource+method: '批量添加附件' (batch add attachments) via a '匹配表' (match table). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling attachment tools like remove_attachments or attachments_info. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling, so it is a clear purpose without sibling routing.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the other attachment tools (attachments_info, enable_attachments, disable_attachments, remove_attachments) that an agent must choose between. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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