patchWorkItemAttachment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is destructive, partial, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description is entirely non-transparent.

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 short but functionally empty—it defers to an external link rather than providing useful content. 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and numerous siblings, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information on return values, prerequisites, or behavior, leaving agents without essential guidance.

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 coverage is only 25% (only requestBody has a description). The description adds no information about the three required parameters (projectId, workItemId, attachmentId) and does not clarify the content or format of requestBody beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 only provides a link to an external user guide and does not state what the tool does. The purpose can only be inferred from the name 'patchWorkItemAttachment', but the description itself is missing or misleading.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., patchWorkItem, deleteWorkItemAttachment, postWorkItemAttachments). The description lacks any context for selection.

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