add_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add genuinely non-schema value: the Jira wiki-markup embed syntax '!filename.png!' and the fact that the file must be local. But it is silent on attach-file permissions, size limits, what happens when a file of the same name already exists, and what the call returns — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the secondary embed trick placed after it. Nothing needs trimming.

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 two-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what to send and one useful post-upload convention. It is still thin on operational reality — permissions, file-size caps, duplicate-name behavior, and error outcomes — which an agent acting without annotations would want.

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%, with both file_path (absolute path, relative resolution against the server working directory) and ticket_id (e.g. GEM-234) fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload a local file to a Jira ticket as an attachment'), which is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (add_comment, create_ticket, link_issues, etc.). An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the upload framing, and the second sentence hints at the follow-up flow (embed the uploaded image in a comment or description), which points implicitly at add_comment/update_ticket. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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