file

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation/removal risk is disclosed structurally. The description adds the non-obvious prerequisite that every write needs a project, but says nothing about whether 'remove' is irreversible, whether delete_file purges the underlying file, or about rate 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and action list; the write prerequisite is placed second. No wasted words, though the 'Write:' fragment is telegraphic rather than explanatory.

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?

A 15-parameter, destructive, output-schema-less tool needs far more than this. The action-to-parameter mapping (which params matter for which action) is absent, so an agent cannot reliably invoke search vs. attach vs. remove without guessing.

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 description coverage is only 13% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. It clarifies the project/project_id requirement but leaves tags, query, file_path, file_types, delete_file, copy_to_bundle, and attachment_id semantics entirely to the sparse 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?

States a clear verb ('Manage') and resource ('file attachments') and enumerates the four actions (attach, list, remove, search), which maps directly to the action enum. An agent can tell this is the attachment-management tool, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'link' or 'problem'.

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?

Provides one conditional rule: 'Write: requires project="<name>" (or project_id)', which tells the agent a prerequisite for attach/remove. It does not say when to pick attach vs. search, nor name any alternative tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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