attach_file

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description adds useful state-behavior context about the research gate refusal. However it says nothing about whether re-attaching the same filename overwrites, duplicates, or is refused — a real gap given idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false are the only signals on that front.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and the gate mechanics second; nothing is padded. The second sentence is dense and clause-heavy, but each clause carries actionable information about the failure/recovery loop.

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 covers the primary workflow and the research-gate recovery well, and there is no output schema to explain. But `dryRun` — a fourth parameter documented nowhere in the schema either — is never mentioned, so an agent cannot learn from the definition that a preview mode exists. That leaves a meaningful hole for a mutation tool.

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 75% and the three documented parameters already carry rich descriptions with their refusal codes (TASK_NOT_FOUND, UNSUPPORTED_FILE_TYPE, input validation). The description merely restates the base64 and `.md` facts already in the schema and adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach a file to a task') plus the key encoding contract (base64), which is exactly what an agent needs to know before calling. No sibling tool attaches files, so there is no ambiguity to resolve; the definition is self-distinguishing.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: attaching a `.md` is the recovery path for a `type:"Research"` task blocked with RESEARCH_REPORT_REQUIRED. That is clear triggering context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g. whether non-.md attachments are ever useful), so it lands at 4.

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