asana_attach_file

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: mandatory confirmation, read path restrictions via ASANA_MCP_FILE_ROOTS, and the 100MB size limit. These are safety-relevant details that the annotations do not provide, making the tool's behavior transparent and predictable.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs three critical constraints (confirmation, path restriction, size limit) without any wasted words. Every part 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 side effects, the description covers the essential safety and scope constraints. There is no output schema, but return values are not critical for understanding how to invoke the tool. Minor details like error handling or overwrite behavior are absent, but the description is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds a global constraint (Max 100MB) and reinforces the confirmation requirement, but does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 action 'Attach a local file to an Asana task', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle tags, followers, or task creation, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (attaching files) and includes critical usage conditions such as requiring confirm:true and path restrictions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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