postWorkItemAttachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions file identification, lacking any info on whether the tool creates or updates attachments, authentication requirements, side effects, or response structure.

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 very short but under-specified. It prioritizes a minor technical detail without stating the tool's overall purpose, making it unhelpful for an agent despite its brevity.

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 3 required parameters and no output schema, but the description lacks essential details like how to structure the request body, expected outcomes, and constraints. It is not complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 33% (only requestBody has a generic description). The description adds no meaning to projectId, workItemId, or requestBody beyond what's in the schema, and fails to explain how the 'order' or 'lid' detail applies to the requestBody.

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 does not explicitly state that the tool posts attachments to work items. It mentions file identification via order or 'lid' attribute, but the overall action (posting) is implied only from the name, leading to vague purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patchWorkItemAttachment, postDocuments). Sibling tools include many similar post operations, but the description offers no context for selection.

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