linear_addAttachment

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and not idempotent, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or whether adding an attachment might overwrite existing ones. The description simply restates the action without enriching the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail, so it is efficient but not fully informative. This is acceptable as a concise structure but could be slightly expanded without losing clarity.

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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an attachment is, the purpose of the required fields, or how the output schema relates to the result. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the description alone. The lack of parameter semantics and usage context makes it nearly unusable.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters, even the required ones (issueId, title, url). It only says 'add an attachment', leaving the agent to guess what each field means and how they are used. This is a critical gap for an 8-parameter tool with nested objects.

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 ('Add') and the resource ('attachment to an issue'), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like linear_getAttachments or linear_createCustomerNeedFromAttachment, so an agent can identify its purpose without ambiguity.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, target use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer when to add an attachment versus using other attachment-related tools. No context is given for when this is the appropriate choice.

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