updateAttachment

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

The annotation `readOnlyHint: false` already indicates this is a write operation, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not mention permissions required, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any side effects. Given the low annotation coverage (only readOnlyHint), the description should carry more weight but doesn't.

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 extremely short (two words), which is concise but at the expense of clarity and informativeness. It is not well-structured because it omits essential details; this is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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?

With 2 required parameters, a nested attachment object, an enum for format, no output schema, and no descriptions in the schema, the description is completely inadequate. There is no explanation of return values, error conditions, or how the request is structured. An agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the provided description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It provides none: the description says nothing about `pathParams` (format, attachmentId) or `bodyParams` (attachment with filename, description). An agent would have to infer parameter semantics entirely from the schema property names, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 'Update attachment' states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getAttachment and deleteAttachment. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the attachment are updated (e.g., filename, description), leaving some ambiguity about its exact scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uploadAttachmentFromLocalFile or updateIssue. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., attachment must exist) or the typical context for invoking an update.

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