Upload attachment

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

Beyond annotations (non-readOnly, non-destructive), the description adds critical context: the operation is invisible on its own, tokens expire, file path must be in REDMINE_ALLOWED_DIRECTORIES, and Redmine may reject oversized files. No contradiction with 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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, then flows naturally into usage details, token expiry, and constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 is part of a two-step flow and has no output schema, the description covers the token's purpose, expiry, and integration with sibling tools. It hints at size limits but doesn't explain how to check them, leaving minor room for improvement. Otherwise, it is well-rounded.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that file_path must be local and in allowed directories, and that description is optional and returned for passing along in the uploads array. It also clarifies how the returned object is shaped. This goes beyond the schema, earning a 4.

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 'Upload a local file to Redmine and get back an upload token' as the core action, and explains it is the first half of a two-step flow, distinguishing it from sibling tools that attach the token (redmine_create_issue, redmine_update_issue).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (before create/update issue), warns that the token does nothing on its own, advises to make the second call promptly due to token expiry, and mentions constraints like allowed directories and size limits. Provides clear when-not-to-use context.

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