attach_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core behavior — reading a file from disk and attaching it to an issue — and 'attach' implies a write to the Jira issue. However, it does not mention failure modes (file not found, size limits), permission requirements, or that the optional comment is posted as part of the operation. Adequate for a low-risk additive action but adds no depth beyond the bare action.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place, and it avoids duplicating what the schema already documents.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description plus the fully-covered schema provide enough to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps exist — no annotations and no mention of success/failure responses or side effects — but these are low-risk omissions for such a straightforward additive operation.

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%, with issue_key, file_path, and comment each documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond loosely echoing 'file from disk' and 'Jira issue', but it doesn't need to compensate given the complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('upload a file from disk', 'attach it to a Jira issue') that is instantly unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from every sibling — none of get_my_tasks, get_task_details, search_tasks, update_task_status, add_comment, create_task, update_task, link_issues, or unlink_issues involves 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 conveys its usage context directly: use this when a file on disk needs to be attached to a Jira issue. No sibling tool overlaps with file attachment, so routing is unambiguous without explicit exclusions. It stops short of a 5 because it never names alternatives or states when-not-to-use conditions.

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