import_issue_attachment

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: this requires admin privileges and is a migration tool that overrides the author and timestamp. It still omits side effects such as notifications or the treatment of the source file, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the 'MIGRATION (admin)' qualifier before the action and target. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 83% schema coverage, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the admin/migration framing, the issue-vs-comment target, and the author/date override. Missing specifics (file constraints, side effects) are minor.

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 83% (baseline 3), and the description adds semantic framing: 'custom author and date' clarifies the purpose of createdAt/createdBy, and 'to an issue or one of its comments' explains the commentId branch. It does not add format or validation detail, but it meaningfully elevates two thinly documented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('attach a local file ... to an issue or to one of its comments') and scopes it as 'MIGRATION (admin)'. The custom-author/date qualifier implicitly separates it from the ordinary upload_issue_attachment sibling, though it never names that sibling.

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 'MIGRATION (admin)' tag implies the use case (backfilling history with overridden author/date), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no named alternative (e.g. upload_issue_attachment), and no stated prerequisites beyond the parenthetical.

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