update_chat_message_attachment

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

The description discloses that the tool modifies data (description and/or pinned state) and requires the attachmentId to belong to the resolved target. Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds the specific update fields and scope constraint. No contradictions.

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 action and scope, with no wasted words. It is concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the function and the attachmentId constraint. It does not explain prerequisites like permissions or return values, but the output schema and annotations compensate. Still room for improvement on potential side effects.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, each parameter is already documented. The description adds little beyond the schema, only reiterating the attachmentId constraint. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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 verb 'Update', the resource 'file attached directly to a Huly channel message, direct-message message, or thread reply', and the scope (description and/or pinned state). It distinguishes from siblings like update_channel_message (message content) and delete_chat_message_attachment (deletion).

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 implies when to use (to update description/pinned state) but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like add_chat_message_attachment or delete_chat_message_attachment. Clear context is given for the target type, but no exclusions.

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