Add attachment

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

Annotations indicate idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and the description reinforces this and adds the storage format detail. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like whether it overwrites existing attachments, permissions required, or any limitations (e.g., file size, URL validation). The description adds some value beyond annotations but could be more transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey the action and key behavior (idempotency). No irrelevant or redundant information. Every word serves a 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers the core functionality but misses important context such as validation rules for 'attachment' (path vs URL), what happens if the ticket doesn't exist, and any return value. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 only 33% (only 'attachment' has a description). The description does not elaborate on 'project' or 'ticket' parameters, which remain undocumented. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema for these parameters, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.

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 a file path or URL to a ticket') and the resource ('ticket'). It also mentions the internal storage format ('[Attachments: ...] on the ticket line'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'remove_attachment' or 'add_media_comment', though the purpose is clear enough.

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 one usage guideline: idempotency (attaching the same item twice is a no-op). However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'remove_attachment'), prerequisites (e.g., ticket must exist), or any conditions that might make the tool inappropriate.

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