upload_work_package_attachment

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it creates a permanent attachment, never modifies the local file, sends bytes only to the configured origin, and rejects files above maxBytes. This aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provides important safety information.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: action and usage condition, path constraints, and behavior details. No unnecessary words.

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 has no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers key behaviors like file size rejection and non-modification. It does not describe the return value or error responses, which would be helpful for completeness. Overall, it is adequate but could add more detail on response format.

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 input schema has 50% coverage: only filePath and maxBytes have descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the allowed directory constraint for filePath and the default/hard limits for maxBytes. It does not add semantics for workPackageId or the description parameter, but the schema provides type and constraint info.

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: 'Read one explicit allowlisted local file and upload it to a work package.' It specifies the resource (local file) and target (work package), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_work_package_comment' or 'create_work_package'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use only when the user identified both the file and target task.' It also mentions constraints like allowed upload directories and file size limits. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the context of uploading attachments is clear.

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