Add Test Step Attachment

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

Annotations indicate write mutation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'upload evidence.' It does not explain fallback resolution logic, idempotency, or error scenarios for the many optional parameters.

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 could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is sufficiently front-loaded.

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 complexity (10 parameters, multiple fallback methods for step resolution), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the resolution logic, conflicting parameter handling, or the legacy fixture-step fallback. No output schema exists to compensate.

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%, so each parameter has a description. The description provides some context for the attachment step resolution but adds little beyond what is already in 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 'Upload' and the resource 'evidence to a manual attachment step inside a test result.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'add_test_result_attachment', which attaches to the test result directly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_test_result_attachment). It does not specify prerequisites, success conditions, or edge cases.

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