Add work item attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the mutation nature ('Requires write tools'), the confirm=true requirement, and the 10 MiB size limit. However, it does not mention what happens on success, whether the attachment replaces existing attachments, or any side effects beyond attaching the file.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action, size limit, and critical preconditions are all front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential preconditions (write tools, confirm=true) and a key constraint (10 MiB). However, it does not describe the return value, error conditions, or how the attachment is identified afterward. Given the tool's complexity (7 params, 4 required), a bit more context would help, but the description is not severely incomplete.

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 43%, so the schema documents some parameters (workItemId, confirm, project) but not others (fileName, contentBase64, comment, expectedRevision). The description adds the 10 MiB size limit and the confirm=true requirement, but does not explain the meaning of contentBase64, comment, or expectedRevision beyond what the schema provides. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('Upload'), a resource ('base64 file'), a target ('work item'), and a size limit ('up to 10 MiB'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_work_item_comment or create_pull_request_comment by naming the exact operation and target.

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 explicitly states the requirement 'Requires write tools and confirm=true', which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and what precondition must be met. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a mutation tool among many read-only siblings.

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