redmine_update_attachment

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

The description only says 'Update' but provides no behavioral details such as whether the file is replaced, permissions needed, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose mutation behavior.

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?

A single concise sentence that captures the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool is simple, but lacking output schema and behavioral details. For a mutation tool, it would benefit from indicating success/error responses or required permissions. However, given the surrounding tools have similarly brief descriptions, this is adequate but not complete.

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% with descriptions for each parameter (id, filename, description). The description repeats 'filename or description', adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'existing attachment', and specifies the fields involved ('filename or description'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like redmine_delete_attachment, redmine_get_attachment, and redmine_upload_file by focusing on modification.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_delete_attachment (for removal) or redmine_get_attachment (for retrieval). There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for updating an attachment.

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