Upload a wiki asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the file is on the server, subject to size/allowlist constraints, and that returned URLs/markdown assume root folder. This is substantial behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, each adding distinct value: action+outputs, constraints, and folder-path caveat. No redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description names the return values (id, URL, markdown). It covers the main use case and important environmental constraints. It could mention error behavior, but for a simple upload tool with 3 parameters, it is adequately 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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds practical nuance about folderId: the returned url/markdown assume root, so non-root requires prefixing the folder path. This goes beyond the schema's simple default explanation.

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?

Description clearly states the action (upload a local file to the wiki as an asset) and the outputs (id, URL, markdown reference). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wiki_list_assets and wiki_create_asset_folder by focusing on the upload operation.

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?

Description gives context (file read from the server, subject to WIKI_MAX_UPLOAD and WIKI_UPLOAD_ALLOWLIST) and a folder-path caveat. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but as the only upload tool among siblings, the intended use is clear.

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