dosare_attach

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal cascading behavior ('A declaration brings its archived recipisas along; a request brings its answer'), but leaves open questions such as whether detach reverses the cascade or what happens with documentId attachments.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by the key semantic detail about cascades. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers the core action and the main cascade side-effect, but leaves gaps: precise parameter-selection rules, detach semantics for cascaded items, and companyId versus STORNO_COMPANY_ID precedence. Adequate but not thorough for a 6-parameter mutation.

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 50%; requestId, documentId and declarationId have no schema descriptions. The description implicitly maps these to the three entity types, adding some meaning, but it does not clarify constraints like 'provide exactly one of the three' or the relationship between detach and the other 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?

Unique, specific verb+resource — 'Attach (or detach) a declaration, an SPV request or an ANAF message to a dosar.' It clearly delineates the action from sibling tools (dosare_create/update/delete/actions) and adds semantic detail about what each attachment type entails.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dosare_update or dosare_actions. The description states what it does but never says 'use when X' or 'instead of Y', leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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