Add attachment

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about storage format ('[Attachments: ...] on the ticket line') and restates idempotency. It discloses the effect without contradicting annotations. Additional traits like authorization or side effects are not covered but the tool is simple.

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 sentence with a parenthetical clarification, no redundancy, and all information is front-loaded. Every word adds meaning.

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 the tool's simplicity (attaching to a ticket), the description adequately covers the action, idempotency, and storage format. No output schema exists, so return value is not explained, but it's implied success. Minor gap: no mention of required permissions or error conditions.

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 low (33%) with only the 'attachment' parameter described as 'A file path or URL.' The description reinforces this but does not elaborate on 'project' or 'ticket'. It adds marginal value beyond the schema for one parameter, but fails to compensate for the other two underscripted 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Attach' and resource 'to a ticket', specifying that it attaches a file path or URL. It distinguishes itself from siblings like remove_attachment by focusing on adding, and includes idempotency detail. The resource and action are unambiguous.

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 implies usage for adding attachments to tickets but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling remove_attachment exists. Preconditions (e.g., ticket existence) are not discussed.

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