ado_add_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses automatic concurrency handling, which is beneficial. However, it fails to mention other behaviors like permission requirements, error handling, or what happens if a file already exists.

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 concise sentences with no unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value: first states purpose, second highlights concurrency handling.

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?

No output schema and no annotations. The description is too minimal: missing return value, error conditions, prerequisites, and alternative parameter usage (filePath vs attachmentUrl). Concurrency handling is mentioned but not enough for a mutation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions in the schema are already present.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Agrega' (adds) and the resource 'adjunto a un Work Item existente'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'upload_attachment' and 'get_attachments' by focusing on attaching to a work item. The mention of automatic concurrency handling adds specificity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The concurrency handling note implies it's useful for concurrent attachments, but no when-not scenarios or sibling comparisons are provided.

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