redmine_update_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that an existing attachment is updated but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is partial (only supplied fields), whether it mutates the attachment record, what side effects occur, if the operation is idempotent, or what response is returned. The description does not contradict any annotations, but it lacks meaningful behavioral detail.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, and its brevity is effective for a simple update tool.

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 simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns on success (e.g., updated attachment object or no content) and perhaps clarify that it only updates metadata, not the file content. The name 'update_attachment' could be misconstrued, but the description's explicit mention of 'filename or description' mitigates that risk. Overall, the description falls short of fully complete for an agent without additional context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents id, filename, and description. The description adds the context that the update specifically targets filename and/or description, but it does not provide additional semantic detail 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing attachment') and clearly scopes the operation to 'filename or description'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attachment and delete_attachment. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer get_attachment or delete_attachment. It also does not mention any prerequisites like the attachment needing to exist or permissions required. There is no explicit setting of context or exclusions.

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