Create Attachment For Object

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it creates a named link that appears in the task's attachments panel, and it explicitly disallows binary file uploads. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the attachment type and the resulting behavior.

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 composed of four concise sentences, each adding essential information: the action, the result, typical use cases, and a critical limitation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 description, combined with full schema coverage and annotations, provides sufficient context for correct tool invocation. It explains the tool's purpose, the type of attachment, typical usage, and the important restriction against binary uploads. No output schema is present, but the description need not detail return values for a simple creation 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters, including the purpose of `parent`, `url`, `name`, and `opt_fields`. The description does not add significant new parameter-level information beyond restating that the parent is a task or project and the attachment is a URL, so it relies on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 that the tool attaches an external URL link to a task or project and creates a named link in the attachments panel. It distinguishes this from file/binary uploads by explicitly noting that only URL-based attachments are supported, and it aligns with sibling tools for attachment management.

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 tells when to use the tool: to link external resources like GitHub PRs, documents, or design files to a task. It also states when not to use it, clearly excluding file uploads and stating that only URL-based attachments are supported. This provides clear context and a distinction from other attachment-related operations.

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