Add Test Result Attachment

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description 'Upload evidence' aligns with mutation but adds no additional behavioral details (e.g., size limits, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements). It does not contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 of 6 words. While efficient, it omits potentially useful context, but for a simple mutation the brevity is acceptable.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not indicate what the tool returns on success/failure. Missing details about error conditions or preconditions (e.g., test_result must exist) reduce completeness for a mutation tool.

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 all parameters including the 'attachment' object pattern. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'Upload' and the resource 'evidence to a manual test result'. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'add_test_step_attachment' by targeting result rather than step.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_test_step_attachment', nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent receives no contextual hints about appropriate usage scenarios.

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