Attach Tracker entity file

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: it requires a specific temp file ID from a prior upload, which is not reflected in annotations, and notes that ycli does not wrap the temporary-upload endpoint. This clarifies non-obvious prerequisites.

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-loads the core action and prerequisite, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 critical prerequisite (temp_file_id source), the return value ('Returns the entity'), and the context that the upload endpoint is not wrapped. With no output schema, it provides enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could note permissions or side effects more explicitly.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds some semantic context about temp_file_id (from temporary-upload endpoint) but does not add meaning beyond the schema for other parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific action ('attach') and resource ('previously uploaded temporary file to a Tracker entity') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the prerequisite of a temp file ID from the temporary-upload endpoint.

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 gives clear context for usage by stating the requirement of a temp_file_id and that files are usually seeded via the UI. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., tracker_attachments_upload) but the context is sufficient to know when to use this tool.

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