attach_assessment_cases

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only says 'attach', which implies mutation, but does not state idempotency, behavior on duplicate associations, permissions required, or what happens on success or failure. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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, front-loaded with the action and then the input patterns. It is concise and free of fluff, but the extreme brevity comes at the cost of essential details, so it does not reach the top score.

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 a nested object with enums, four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not even mention the required 'slug' parameter, nor does it explain the structure of the cases array or what a successful attach returns. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions the two input patterns (cases array or case_id + source) but does not explain any parameter semantics such as slug, order, weight, time_limit_minutes, or the meaning of the source enum. The compensation is inadequate.

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 a clear action ('attach') and resource ('cases to an assessment'), and hints at two input modes (cases array or case_id + source). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_assessment_case and replace_assessment_cases by implying an additive action, but it does not explicitly say whether it replaces or appends, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as replace_assessment_cases or remove_assessment_case. The description only mentions input patterns, not conditions or exclusions. An agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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