add_document_attachment

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, which the description's 'Add an attachment' aligns with. The description adds that it finds the document by teamspace and title/ID, but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or file size limits.

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-loaded with the purpose, and no redundant information. Every word is meaningful.

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?

With 9 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but missing details on return values, success confirmation, or error scenarios. It covers the basic operation but not the full context.

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 coverage is 100% (all 9 parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of filePath, fileUrl, and data, which is not explicit in 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 the tool adds an attachment to a Huly document and specifies it is a convenience method that finds the document by teamspace and title/ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_issue_attachment' or 'upload_file'.

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 advises providing exactly one of filePath, fileUrl, or data, which is helpful. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_attachment for other entities) or mention prerequisites like document existence.

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