wrike_update_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update attachment name,' which signals mutation but does not discuss side effects, permissions, whether the update is partial or full, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified, lacking any additional context that would enhance usefulness. It is efficient but too minimal to earn a higher score.

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?

For a simple update tool with two required parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the basic action. However, the absence of annotations and output schema means important context (e.g., return value, error scenarios, or unique constraints) is missing, making it slightly below average in completeness.

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% for both parameters, with the schema already explaining 'Attachment ID' and 'New attachment name.' The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool updates an attachment's name, using a specific verb ('update') and resource ('attachment name'). It differentiates from sibling attachment tools by specifying the update action, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wrike_download_attachment or wrike_delete_attachment. The description provides no context for tool selection among the many attachment-related siblings.

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