attach_build

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose the write behavior, but it only mentions the default selection ('newest processed build') and the 'Pro feature' restriction. It does not state that attaching a build replaces any existing build association, whether it can be undone, or what permissions are required. As a mutating operation, this lack of side-effect disclosure is a notable gap.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and direct, with no redundant wording. The 'Pro feature' note is a necessary restriction, and the sentence earns its place.

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 is a mutation with no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after attachment or when it is appropriate. It only provides the default selection behavior and the Pro restriction, but omits important context such as whether the version must be in a specific state, what a successful attach means for the release process, and how to verify the action. Given the low complexity, a slightly fuller description would make it complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both app_id and build_id. The description adds little beyond the schema, except confirming that omitting build_id defaults to the newest processed build, which aligns with the schema's 'newest VALID build' note. Therefore, it meets the baseline of 3 for parameter semantics.

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 a build') and the target ('the editable version'), with a specific default behavior ('newest processed build'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like assign_build_to_group by specifying the editable version rather than a beta group. The 'Pro feature' note adds a scope constraint, but does not obscure the core 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?

The description implies the tool is used to associate a build with the editable release version, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like assign_build_to_group or create_version. It lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites, such as the version being in a particular state or the build being valid. The only hint is the default to the newest processed build, which is more of a selection rule than usage guidance.

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