create_workitem_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does so by explaining that the MCP Server reads the file from an absolute path, supports any file type except SVG/TIFF, and limits file size to 10MB. It also describes the response fields and their intended use (e.g., url expiry). This provides sufficient transparency for safe invocation.

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 purpose and then provides structured details on response fields and usage steps. While somewhat lengthy, every part adds value for proper usage. It is not overly verbose given the complexity of the tool and its integration with other operations.

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 complexity (upload, response handling, integration with update_work_item), the description covers essential aspects: file type/size limits, response field semantics, and a step-by-step guide for embedding images. Without an output schema, it thoroughly explains return values. However, it omits error handling and permission requirements.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for operatorId (application token scenario) and clarifies that filePath is an absolute path. However, the schema already covers parameter meanings, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding. The ambiguous token statement slightly detracts.

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: 'Upload a local file as an attachment to a work item'. It specifies the method (multipart/form-data) and the resource (work item). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_work_item_comment or update_work_item, though the context implies attachment-specific functionality.

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 a three-step method for using the tool to embed images in work item descriptions, which gives clear usage context. It also explains token scenarios. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternative approaches for attaching files, and the token requirement statement is somewhat contradictory ('必传可省略').

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