上传图片并追加到 TAPD 缺陷描述

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Discloses read-then-write strategy to avoid overwrite, file type/size limits, and error handling for write failure. Could mention idempotency or concurrency, but sufficient for safe use.

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?

Concise paragraph: first sentence summarizes action, then details constraints and error behavior. No filler, every sentence adds value.

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, but description explains partial failure. Lacks return value details (e.g., what is returned on success). For a mutation tool with error handling, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds minor context: file_base64 can include data URI, workspace_id can be obtained via other tools. Does not significantly enhance schema info.

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 explicitly states the multi-step action: upload image, read current description, append image, and write back. It distinguishes from siblings like tapd_upload_bug_image (upload only) and tapd_writeback (manual write).

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?

Clear context: used for appending images to bug descriptions without overwriting. Mentions fallback to tapd_writeback on write failure. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to all siblings (e.g., tapd_upload_bug_attachment).

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