Attach elements to an issue

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating and destructive operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful context: the element must be an existing issue and the Tapir add-on is required. It does not explain what destruction may occur, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core action, target, and result type, then adds the important prerequisite. There is no repetition, filler, or 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?

With annotations and an output schema present, some context is already supplied. The description covers the core action and the add-on requirement, but leaves gaps around optional parameters, the exact meaning of 'highlights', and how this differs from sibling issue-attachment workflows. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely maps 'elements' to guids and 'issue' to issue_id, but it says nothing about the 'port' parameter, the format of guids, or the relationship between them. An agent would still have to guess the full parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Attach') with a clear resource ('elements') and an explicit target ('an existing issue') and adds the qualifier 'as highlights'. This meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like move_elements, delete_elements, and add_issue_comment.

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 the tool is for attaching element references to an issue as highlights and notes the Tapir add-on prerequisite. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to related tools such as add_issue_comment or create_issues_from_failures.

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