attach_data_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral context about the prerequisite state (capsule must have no running cloud workstations) and clarifies the input format requirement ('Accepts a list of parameter objects... not just a list of IDs'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or response format.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and optional feature, second provides usage guidelines with sibling distinction, third clarifies input format. Every sentence adds essential information and is front-loaded with key details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description does well by covering purpose, usage context, sibling distinction, and input format clarification. Since there's an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The main gap is lack of information about side effects or error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'attach_params' should be 'a list of parameter objects' with examples, and mentions 'optional mount paths' which maps to the 'mount' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly explain the 'capsule_id' parameter or provide format details for the IDs.

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 specific action ('Attach one or more data assets to a capsule') and distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'attach_computation_data_assets' by specifying different usage contexts. It provides both the verb and resource with clear scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the capsule has no running cloud workstations') and when to use the alternative ('For active cloud workstation sessions use attach_computation_data_assets instead'). This provides clear decision criteria for the agent.

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