Attach File to Work Item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 100MB size limit, file type support, default org/project, and auth ordering - all useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether the upload modifies the work item's state, triggers notifications, or what the response format looks like. It adds reasonable context despite gaps.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. First sentence states purpose, file types, and size limit; second sentence covers defaults and auth. Every clause earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool has 4 params (all documented), no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers purpose, file limits, defaults, and auth flow - fairly complete for an attachment tool. Minor gap: no mention of behavior on failure or whether attachments replace existing ones, but these are edge concerns for a straightforward upload tool.

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 100%, so all 4 parameters already have property descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the fileName parameter's default behavior (falls back to filePath's basename) and that filePath requires an absolute path. The defaults for org/project organization context are also helpful beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (upload), resource (Azure DevOps work item attachment), and purpose (create link, plain text and binary files, 100MB limit). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like az_workitem_update and az_workitem_relations by focusing specifically on file 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?

The description provides useful context by stating default organization/project values (SKMHHIS, MS) and authentication precedence (AZURE_DEVOPS_EXT_PAT env var before az login credentials). It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it versus alternatives, but the attachment-specific purpose is clear enough given the sibling tools listed.

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