Upload Issue Attachment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning the operation is mutating. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as permissions, size limits, or whether the attachment replaces existing ones. It only repeats the base64 detail already present in the schema, so the description adds minimal value beyond the annotation.

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?

Description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no redundancy. It states the action, target, and input encoding without unnecessary detail.

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 the simple upload behavior, the description sufficiently covers the core action. The complete parameter schema (100% coverage) and presence of an output schema mean the description does not need to explain return values or parameter details. It could optionally note constraints like size limits, but for a basic upload, the information is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, including the optional mime_type. The tool description itself does not elaborate on any parameters; it simply states the base64 input, which is already defined in the schema. Thus, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Upload a base64-encoded file and attach it to a Yandex Tracker issue' — a specific verb (upload/attach), resource (Yandex Tracker issue), and input format (base64). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_download_attachment or issue_get_attachments.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the purpose alone implies usage for attaching files to issues. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools, so it only provides implied context.

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