pocketdraft_attach_file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond them – that changes are committed to the paired editor – but never says what the destructive attach overwrites (existing layer/canvas content, interaction with cropPolicy) or what auth/state is required.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. The odd '--workspace' fragment is the only structural blemish.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a 7-parameter destructive mutation with 0% schema coverage the description is far too thin. It omits what cropPolicy reset/preserve does, what layerId/canvasId select, and what revision's 64-hex hash is for.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description only echoes the three 'target' enum values while leaving file, projectId, revision, layerId, canvasId and cropPolicy entirely unexplained in both schema and prose. The stray '--workspace' token does not map to any documented parameter, so it cannot compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('Attach') and resource ('local screenshot/image/background'), and names the destination ('within --workspace ... paired editor'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pocketdraft_batch_mutation or pocketdraft_export, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 versus alternatives (e.g. batch_mutation, preview), nor any prerequisites such as whether the project must be open in the paired editor first. Usage is only loosely implied by 'within --workspace'.

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