Add an attachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the file is provided as base64 content, which is also in the schema. However, it does not describe the outcome (e.g., whether the attachment is appended or replaces existing ones), any size limits, or required permissions. This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key details. It is concise without unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description adequately explains the core operation. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not mention return values, error handling, or behavioral constraints (e.g., file size limits). This leaves some gaps in completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema provides. The list of artifact types in the description mirrors the enum in the schema, so no extra semantics are offered.

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 ('Attach a file') and the target resource ('to a qTest artifact'), with specific artifact types listed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly CRUD operations on artifacts.

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 implies when to use the tool (any time you need to attach a file to an artifact) and lists example artifact types, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like qtest_link_artifacts or qtest_add_test_step. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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