innoslate_attach_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that it REPLACES an existing file and that a dry-run/confirm_token flow applies. It still omits auth/permissions requirements and what the dry-run response looks like, so it sits at a solid 3.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the replacement warning, then the workflow pointer. No filler, though the parenthetical about Artifacts is slightly interruptive.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations details, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently form a dry_run/confirm_token call sequence or interpret id/path/project_url from this text alone.

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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies property_name (defaults to 'File' on Artifacts), leaving id, path, dry_run, project_url, and confirm_token entirely undocumented in both schema and description. One param explained out of six is a clear shortfall.

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?

States a specific verb (upload/attach) and resource (local file into an entity's file property), and clarifies the property naming on Artifacts. It also discloses the replacement semantics. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like innoslate_update or innoslate_apply, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 reference to 'same dry-run and confirm_token flow as innoslate_apply' gives a usable procedural pointer and implies a two-step confirmation workflow. However, it never says when to use this tool instead of innoslate_update (which presumably sets other properties), nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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