wit_attach

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

The description discloses that this is a write operation requiring confirmation ('Escrita: write + confirm'), which is behavior beyond the schema. It also mentions the upload and AttachedFile relationship. However, with no annotations, it leaves out side effects, permission details, and irreversibility, so it only partially carries the burden.

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 minimal and front-loaded: one sentence states the core purpose, followed by a short tag for the write/confirm behavior. There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

For a write operation with five parameters, two required, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It omits rationale for the confirm flag, project allowlisting implications, return values, and enough parameter detail to ensure correct invocation.

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 only 40%, and the tool description does not explain the id, comment, confirm, or project parameters. It only indirectly mentions 'confirm' and 'upload' (implying filePath), failing to compensate for the large undocumented portion of the schema.

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 a specific action ('attaches a local file to a work item') and resource ('work item'), and even explains the mechanism ('upload + AttachedFile relationship'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wit_link or wit_create.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wit_link or wit_create. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or any exclusion conditions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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