Artifact Attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the file is copied to <home>/artifacts, has a 100 MB limit, returns attachment metadata, and warns to use only user-indicated paths. However, it omits permissions, overwrite behavior, and error handling details.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by use case, return value, example, and notes. Every section is short and contributes directly to invocation clarity.

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 output schema exists, so return-value details are supplementary, and the description covers purpose, usage, size limit, and an example. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the missing connection_id semantics and lack of permission or failure behavior leave meaningful gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives an example showing item_id and file_path, and implies item_id links to an item while file_path is a local path, but the optional connection_id parameter is never explained or mentioned.

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 and resource: attaching a local file to an item, with copy destination and size limit. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling artifact_get and from unrelated item operations.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when the item value is a file such as a diagram, template, or script. It also points to item_get for listing existing artifacts, though it does not state when not to use this tool or name a direct alternative.

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