add_project_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the token prerequisite and module requirement, which are useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed beyond the module, or what side effects occur — shortcomings for a mutation tool without annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the prerequisite front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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 purpose and key usage conditions, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. But it leaves all four parameters without semantic guidance and omits side-effect details, creating clear gaps for a write operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly references the token parameter by saying it comes from upload_attachment, and says nothing about project_id, filename, or description. The four parameters remain essentially undocumented.

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 specific verb and resource: registering an already-uploaded file to a project's Files module. It distinguishes itself from upload_attachment by specifying the token prerequisite, and notes the Documents module is not API-supported. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other file-related siblings like list_files or download_attachment.

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 clear prerequisites: first obtain a token via upload_attachment, and the files module must be enabled. It also indicates an alternative context by saying the Documents module is not API-supported, so use this instead. No explicit when-not-to-use case is given, but the conditions are sufficiently clear.

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