add_issue_attachment

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a convenience method that resolves issue by project and identifier, and requires one of three mutually exclusive file sources. Annotations are minimal (non-readOnly, non-destructive), so the description compensates well.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 core functionality and constraint but lacks information about return values, error handling, or behavior when multiple file sources are provided. Given the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the one-of constraint among three parameters, which is not explicit in the schema. This provides meaningful guidance for choosing the right parameter.

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 'Add an attachment to a Huly issue', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'add_attachment' by noting it is a convenience method that finds the issue by project and identifier.

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 says 'Provide ONE of: filePath, fileUrl, or data', giving clear usage guidance. However, it does not mention when to use alternatives like 'add_attachment' or exclude certain cases.

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