add_attachment_to_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Add an attachment' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, file size limits, supported file types, whether this overwrites existing attachments, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it communicates.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of file attachment operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about how the operation works.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (case_id and file_path). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid case_id or file_path format. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Add an attachment to a test case' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (attachment to test case). It's specific but doesn't distinguish from sibling attachment tools like 'add_attachment_to_plan' or 'add_attachment_to_result' which have similar structures but different targets.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple attachment-related siblings (add_attachment_to_plan, add_attachment_to_result, etc.), the description doesn't explain that this is specifically for test cases versus other entities. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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