attachKnowledgeBaseFiles

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive mutation. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context: it doesn't disclose whether attaching files replaces existing attachments or appends to them, whether it requires the agent to exist, or what side effects occur. The description simply restates the core action without additional nuance.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. The parenthetical tag 'Knowledge base' is slightly redundant but harmless. There is no waste or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

While the schema provides parameter details, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It does not explain whether the operation is additive or replacing, what happens to existing file attachments, or what the response indicates. There is no output schema to fall back on. Given the complexity and lack of behavioral detail, the description leaves important gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, including descriptions for agent_id, file_ids, and when_to_use. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action: 'Attach multiple knowledge-base files to an agent.' It identifies the resource (knowledge-base files), the target (an agent), and the operation (attach). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detachKnowledgeBaseFiles, uploadKnowledgeBaseFile, and listKnowledgeBaseFiles.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as uploadKnowledgeBaseFile for uploading new files or detachKnowledgeBaseFiles for removing attachments. It only includes a 'Knowledge base' tag, which hints at context but does not explicitly state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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