Upload Attachment

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that file contents must be passed as base64, which is a critical encoding requirement for invocation.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and contains no filler or redundant detail. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should at least hint at the expected return value or success behavior, but it does not. It also omits any mention of error conditions, size limits, or authentication requirements. For a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps.

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 only 43%, and the description does not compensate much. It repeats that file contents are base64 (already in the schema) and lists target resource types (already in the enum). It does not explain parameters like 'project' or 'file_name' beyond what the schema already provides, leaving the agent to infer their meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Upload') and a clear resource category ('file attachment'), and lists the target entity types (epic, user story, task, issue, wiki page). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attachment_download and attachment_delete.

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 clearly communicates that this tool is for uploading attachments to supported resources. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with listing, downloading, or deleting attachments.

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