attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the refusal behavior and the force condition, which is valuable. However, it doesn't explain what 'report its state' means, any permissions needed, or consequences of force beyond attaching.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then usage instruction, then a caveat. Every word 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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, timing, and a key edge case. It could clarify what 'report its state' entails, but overall it's sufficient.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'force' in context of refusal, but the schema already describes force as 'Attach even if another assistant is live,' so no significant added meaning. Session is not discussed in the description.

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 tool's action ('Pin the meeting to assist and report its state') with a specific verb and resource, making its purpose obvious. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the action of attaching/initializing a session is distinct from the listed siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call once at the start,' providing a clear when-to-use instruction. It also describes the refusal condition and force bypass, but doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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