Adds Attachments To A Defect Resource.

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

Reveals non-idempotent behavior ('calling it again creates another record'), HTTP 201 response, upload URL for new file records, and common error statuses with causes. This substantially enriches the sparse annotations, which only hint read-only/idempotent/destructive characteristics.

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 dense but well-structured: FAS behavior, defaults, creation semantics, errors, required params, and API reference. Slightly long but each sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Covers response details, error codes, endpoint, prerequisite to resolve id, and permission-related HTTP statuses. Lacks explicit file content upload instructions, but that is outside the tool's scope. The file_id discrepancy is a notable gap.

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?

While the schema already documents the three required path parameters, the description introduces a file_id parameter not present in the schema (additionalProperties:false) and claims company_id/project_id default when omitted despite being required. This creates harmful ambiguity about actual callable parameters, outweighing the useful note about id resolving to an existing parent.

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 it creates an attachment for a defect resource, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling attachment tools by naming the defect endpoint and explaining the FAS behavior.

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?

Provides contextual guidance: resolve the parent defect with a list tool first, use a pre-obtained file_id or let FAS create a new record, and notes defaults for company/project. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the context is clear for this tool.

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