add_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and the need for a file path, without mentioning potential side effects, permission requirements, size limits, or whether existing attachments with the same name are replaced.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes a necessary hint about the file path. There is no fluff or repetition, making it an exemplary concise description.

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?

The tool has a simple schema (2 required scalar params) and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the basic function but lacks details about when to use it, possible requirements, or return behavior, which are relevant for a mutation tool. For a basic attachment action, the essentials are present, but more context would improve completeness.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with meaningful descriptions ('Issue key (e.g., CCOE-12345)' and 'Absolute path to the file to attach'). The description's phrase 'provide file path' is redundant with the schema, adding no extra semantic value.

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 states 'Add attachment to a Jira issue' with a specific verb ('add') and target ('Jira issue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_comment or add_worklog. The parenthetical '(provide file path)' reinforces the key input, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for attaching files to issues, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The use case is inferred from the sibling tool names, which differentiate other actions like comments or worklogs.

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