op_add_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the multipart format and the default file_name behavior, which adds valuable context. However, it does not mention permissions, error conditions, or side effects beyond the upload, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with sections for operation, technical context, args, and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the technical note about multipart/form-data is concise and informative without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description covers the operation's purpose, required multipart format, all parameters, and return format. With an output schema present, the return explanation is a bonus. It lacks explicit usage exclusions or error semantics, but for a simple file upload tool, it is reasonably 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an Args section that explains each parameter clearly, including the default derivation for file_name. This goes beyond the schema's bare type declarations, though it does not specify constraints like file size or allowed characters.

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 opens with the specific action 'Загрузить файл как вложение к задаче' (upload file as attachment), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like op_add_comment or op_get_work_package. It uses a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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 first line provides a clear use case for the tool. It also includes a technical requirement for multipart/form-data, which implicitly advises on the expected input format. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the sibling tools are functionally distinct and not competing for the same action.

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