add_attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful constraint (only URLs, no file uploads), but it omits other behavioral aspects such as permissions required, whether existing attachments are affected, or potential error conditions. This is adequate for a simple add operation but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately follow with the key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main operation sufficiently. However, it leaves the optional 'name' parameter undocumented and does not provide any caveats about prerequisites or side effects. This is a noticeable gap for a mutation 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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies that 'url' must be a URL and 'card_id' refers to the target card. However, the optional 'name' parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving its purpose and behavior ambiguous. Thus, the description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and clearly identifies the resource ('attachment') and target ('card'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_attachments and delete_attachment by specifying the exact action (adding a URL).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to attach a URL to a card) and explicitly excludes file uploads, which serves as a when-not. However, it does not mention alternative tools for related operations like viewing or deleting attachments, so it misses the full 'alternatives' criterion.

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