Add Attachment to Issue

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

Beyond the minimal readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses the multipart/form-data upload mechanism, the 8 MB size cap, and the fact that the created attachment is returned. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but it covers the main operational behavior an agent needs.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying necessary information: purpose, file location requirement, upload format and size limit, and return value. No redundant or filler wording.

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 straightforward three-parameter mutation with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly. Together with the schema, it is fully self-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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds one useful practical detail—the file must be readable on the MCP server host—but most parameter meaning is already present in the input schema, including issue_id format and filename defaulting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a local file to a Yandex Tracker issue.' This directly differentiates it from the sibling read tool issue_get_attachments, while the absolute-path constraint clarifies the exact input the agent must supply.

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 intended use is clear from the upload-specific requirements: the file must be local to the MCP server host, passed as an absolute path, and no larger than 8 MB. It does not name sibling alternatives explicitly or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough for correct selection.

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