Update Attachment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses partial-update behavior, default company_id behavior, success return value, and error payload structure with common HTTP statuses. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the core action and updatable fields, then logically covers defaults, prerequisites, return value, errors, and endpoint. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes useful information; no redundancy.

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?

The description covers return value, error handling, required parameters, and defaults, which is strong given no output schema. However, the phantom 'attachment_type_id' field and the company_id default/required contradiction create confusion, making the description incomplete for a complex update operation.

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 description adds value with default company_id behavior and resolution hints, but it introduces 'attachment_type_id' as an updatable field that is absent from the schema (which has additionalProperties:false), and it contradicts the schema by implying company_id is optional when the schema marks it required. This is misleading for parameter handling.

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 ('Updates a specific attachment') and specifies scope via the endpoint path and required IDs (company_id, asset_id, attachment_id), distinguishing it from project-level or list/delete attachment tools. It also names the updatable field.

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 clear context for use: updating an existing attachment, partial update semantics, and prerequisite to resolve parent records via the matching list tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the endpoint and scope make the intended use clear.

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