attach_reference_to_agent

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait: 'the link lives outside the entity body, so re-reading the agent will not show it.' This warns the agent of an invisible side effect. No contradictions with missing annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action and then add a crucial caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the action and an important behavioral nuance but lacks details on return value, error handling, or any prerequisites (e.g., existence of reference doc). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions 'reference' and 'agent' but does not explain that agentId identifies the agent and refId identifies the reference document. Parameters are implied but not explicitly defined, which is insufficient for full understanding.

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 'Scope a reference to a agent so the agent uses it' clearly states the action (attaching a reference doc to an agent) and uses specific verbs and resources. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like detach_reference_from_agent and list_agent_reference_docs.

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 explicitly advises verifying with list_agent_reference_docs before request_publish_agent, providing clear usage context. It does not mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the verification instruction is prescriptive and helpful.

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