kiwi_add_test_case_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation and the base64 requirement; it does not mention whether attachments are appended or replaced, file size limits, required permissions, or what happens on failure.

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 primary purpose. The second sentence gives the key encoding requirement, though it is partly redundant with the schema property description.

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 simple mutation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema are largely sufficient for an agent to construct the call. Missing details like acceptable file types, maximum size, or response expectations are not covered, but the core invocation is clear.

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 only 33%, and the description adds little beyond the schema: 'Provide base64-encoded content' restates the existing property description. It does not explain the semantics of case_id or filename, though these are somewhat inferable from their names.

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 the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a file to a test case.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like kiwiadd_test_case_comment, kiwi_add_test_case_tag, and kiwi_add_run_attachment, which operate on different resources or attach different entities.

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 a clear object-level context ('to a test case'), so an agent can infer when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to prefer another sibling such as kiwi_add_run_attachment over this one.

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