attach_tool

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that tool names can correspond to MCP tools not yet in Letta (which will be registered first), and mentions verification with 'list_agent_tools'. Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries most of the burden and does so effectively without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise usage notes and verification steps in three clear sentences. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral nuances (like MCP tool registration), and references to related tools, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as clarifying that tool names can be for existing Letta tools or MCP tools, but this is largely redundant with schema details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('one or more tools to an agent'), specifying that tools can be identified by ID or name. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_agent_tools' (for verification) and 'upload_tool' (for creation), providing specific differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to attach tools to an agent') and provides clear alternatives for related actions: 'Find tools with list_mcp_tools_by_server or create custom ones with upload_tool. Use list_agent_tools to verify attachment.' This gives comprehensive guidance on prerequisites and verification.

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