attach_registry_handoff_to_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the prerequisite that the bundle must be 'validated' and that it lands in 'provenance', which is useful. It does not disclose what is overwritten, whether re-attaching is rejected (idempotentHint=false), or any permission needs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though it is dense with domain jargon ('aop_context', 'provenance'). Efficient, but minimal content given the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive 5-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the meaning of nearly every parameter and any usage context, leaving an agent under-informed about how to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 required parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. It obliquely references the bundle ('handoff bundle') and target draft, but says nothing about author, summary, draft_id, or version_id, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and text.

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 ('Attach') and a specific resource ('validated Registry aop_context handoff bundle') bound to a target ('draft's provenance'). Clear what it does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like review_registry_handoff_bundle or review_draft_bundle that touch the same handoff/bundle domain.

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 phrase 'for later review/export' hints at downstream purpose but gives no condition for choosing this tool over review_registry_handoff_bundle or save_draft_review_artifact. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no when-not-to-use guidance.

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