attach_artifact

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the operation registers without changing external storage, which helps an agent understand it is metadata-only and not a file-moving or storage-mutating action. However, with no annotations, the description still leaves gaps around idempotency, error behavior, checksum validation, and permissions.

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, focused sentence with no filler; it front-loads the core purpose. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity does not allow room for sibling differentiation or usage guidance.

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?

Given seven parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently select and correctly invoke the tool. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but key context about when to use this versus registers, models, or links is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter explanations. The description does not define or clarify any of the seven parameters, leaving the agent to infer meaning from names like logical_name, physical_location, and belongs_to without details on formats, constraints, or relationships.

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 identifies the action ('Register') and the resource ('a physical artifact/reference'), and adds a meaningful qualifier ('without changing its external storage'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like register_contract or register_model, so the differentiation is left to inference from the resource type.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as register_contract, register_model, link_entities, or record_execution_receipt. The description gives a general sense of the operation but no conditions, exclusions, or explicit scenarios.

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