attach_foundation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this creates draft edges, runs LLM validation, does not confer credit until separately confirmed, and returns {created, failed}. It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or error details, but the most important state-changing semantics are transparent.

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: three sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. The inline code example for selections is terse and helpful, and every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

Despite the lack of annotations, the description covers the key workflow context: relationship to propose_attach_foundation, draft nature, validation, and the absence of credit. It explains the return shape even though an output schema exists. It does not explain server_version or describe failure modes, but for a draft-creation tool this is reasonably complete.

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 75% with server_version left undocumented, and the description does not compensate for that gap. It adds contextual meaning for selections (the operator-confirmed subset from propose_attach_foundation) but mostly restates the schema's {source_objective_id, provider_control_id} structure. The model_id and foundation_model_id descriptions in schema are terse and the description adds little beyond them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create draft delegation edges for selected (objective, control) pairs.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling propose_attach_foundation by positioning this tool as acting on the 'operator-confirmed subset' of proposals, and clarifies the draft state and lack of credit until confirmation.

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 gives useful context by noting selections are typically the confirmed subset from propose_attach_foundation and that edges are only drafts requiring later confirmation. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for confirmation or say when not to use this tool, but the intended workflow is clearly implied.

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