copy_attachment

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

The description contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It describes a copy operation that creates a new attachment on a target record and explicitly requires WRITE_ENABLED=true, which is a write operation. This is a serious inconsistency that could mislead an agent into thinking the tool has no side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key constraints (server-side, WRITE_ENABLED=true, bytes not passed). It conveys purpose and a use case with zero fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 the essential context: what it does, the write requirement, and the typical use case. It does not mention error conditions or return values, but for a simple copy operation without an output schema, this is acceptable. However, the annotation contradiction undermines trust in the overall 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds only a minor note about file_name defaulting to the source name, which is already in the schema. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (copy an existing attachment), the source (existing attachment), and the target (another record). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like upload_attachment and read_attachment by noting the server-side execution and that file bytes never pass through, plus a concrete use case ('attach the same document from this record onto that KB / incident').

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?

It provides a clear use case and explicitly mentions the WRITE_ENABLED=true requirement, which tells the agent when it can be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context of 'copy' vs 'upload' implies the distinction. This is adequate but could be stronger with explicit 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.