Projects Attach Asset

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already indicate. Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not explain possible side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or the return value. It merely restates the operation.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Attach' and immediately conveys the core purpose.

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 is minimal and does not cover important contextual aspects for a mutation tool: no return value, no error conditions, no idempotency notes, and no mention of whether the project and asset must already exist. The openWorldHint=true annotation suggests unstated side effects, but the description gives no further detail.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, only the project ID parameter is explicitly documented as 'Project ID (UUID)' in the schema. The description helps clarify that assetId refers to the asset being attached, but it does not add deeper detail about required formats or constraints beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action: 'Attach an asset to a project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it semantically distinguishes from the sibling tool 'projects_detach-asset' by being the inverse operation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as projects_detach-asset. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the action itself.

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