agent_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one useful fact — that a token is returned and should be retained for shared connections — but it never says whether attach creates state, what happens on conflict or re-attach, or whether a claim generation is required, all of which matter for a 4-parameter mutation.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the brevity comes from omission rather than density — the token guidance earns its place, while the core semantics of "attach" are not conveyed at all.

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?

For a four-parameter, zero-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is under-powered: parameter roles, mutation effects, and failure modes are all absent. Mentioning the returned token partially compensates for the missing output schema, but the parameter gaps dominate.

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 all four parameters (agent_token, client_agent_id, claim_generation, client_session_id) are undocumented in both schema and description. "Named agent" loosely gestures at client_agent_id, but the roles of agent_token, claim_generation, and client_session_id are entirely unexplained.

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 names a verb ("Attach") and a resource ("an independent named agent"), but what "attach" actually accomplishes is left undefined. It does not distinguish this from siblings like agent_detach, agent_heartbeat, or item_claim, which an agent would need in order to pick correctly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. The phrase "shared connections" hints at a multi-client scenario but gives no actionable condition for selecting this over agent_detach or agent_list.

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