rt_attach_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the destructive CV replacement behavior, the requirement for replaceCv, the two-call confirmation gate, and the post-upload verification expectation: "if it comes back unlinked, say so rather than reporting it as attached."

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers side effects, safety rules, and verification behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure moves from high-level action to specific constraints without redundancy.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is impressively complete: it covers the key side effect, required confirmation flow, file-source restriction, and post-verification behavior. It does not detail file-type limits or exact response shapes, but those are not essential for safe invocation.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 80%, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains asCv's role, replaceCv's side effect of demoting an existing CV, and the confirm parameter via the "preview, then confirm" gate. This goes well above the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: "Attach a local file to an existing candidate — a CV, or a summary document." It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rt_add_note or rt_create_candidate by focusing on file attachment and the CV-vs-plain-attachment distinction.

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?

Provides clear procedural context: attach only files the user named, never substitute files, and use a two-call gate (preview, then confirm). It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the usage boundaries are well implied.

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