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

Annotations already declare destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, but the description adds genuine context beyond them: the required API-key scope (`wiki:attachments:write`), the return type (WikiAttachmentDTO), and the resulting status value. It leaves the behavior of a duplicate confirmation undefined, which is the main residual gap.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the step position and action, followed by the return value and the call precondition. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a flow-dependent mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the state transition, the return type, the auth scope, and the ordering constraint. It stops short of describing failure modes (e.g., confirming without a completed PUT, or repeated confirmation), which leaves a small gap for a destructive, non-idempotent 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the description adds no syntax or format details. It only reinforces that attachmentId originates from wiki_request_attachment_upload, which the schema states verbatim. 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?

Names the specific verb (confirm), the resource (attachment), and situates it precisely as step 3 of the upload flow, including the state transition it triggers (status becomes "confirmed"). An agent can distinguish it from wiki_request_attachment_upload and wiki_delete_attachment without inspecting schemas.

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?

States an explicit precondition: "Call only after the byte PUT succeeded," which pins the ordering in the three-step flow. It does not explicitly name the sibling that produces the uploadUrl, though the reference to the presigned URL makes the linkage inferable. No explicit when-not guidance.

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