Attach a build to a version

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description usefully adds that the target must be the *editable* version and that the tool is Pro-gated, but it does not explain what the destructive aspect means in practice (e.g., whether an already-attached build is replaced) or what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded ahead of the default behavior, with no wasted prose. 'Pro feature' is terse but carries real information; the only cost is that brevity leaves the destructive semantics unexplained.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers enough to invoke it, but omits what happens to a previously attached build and any prerequisite that the version be in an editable state. Adequate, not thorough.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's default rule ('newest processed build') conflicts with the schema's own wording ('Omit for newest VALID build'), introducing ambiguity about which build is selected. That inconsistency actively degrades parameter understanding rather than adding to it.

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?

Clear verb+resource: attach a build to the editable version, with the target (editable version) and the default source (newest build) stated. It is distinguishable from assign_build_to_group and upload_binary, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

States the default behavior when build_id is omitted ('defaults to the newest processed build') and notes 'Pro feature' gating, which implies an availability constraint. However, there is no when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like assign_build_to_group or submit_for_review.

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