update_attachment

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

The description only restates the update operation, which is already implied by annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not add behavioral context beyond annotations, such as whether fields are replaced or merged, or what happens on invalid input.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. It is efficient but could include a bit more context without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention side effects, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'pin_attachment'. The annotations provide safety info but the description lacks completeness for a mutation tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'description' and 'pinned status', which map directly to parameters, but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The schema already documents field purposes and constraints.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'attachment metadata', and specifies the fields 'description' and 'pinned status'. However, there is potential overlap with the sibling tool 'pin_attachment', which may cause confusion about when to use this tool versus the more specific one.

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 (e.g., 'pin_attachment' for just toggling pin). It lacks prerequisites or context about required permissions or attachment existence.

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