Upload Multiple Attachments

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that by disclosing that same-named files automatically create new versions. It also clarifies that all files share the same comment and minor_edit settings, which is useful behavioral context.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the efficiency comparison and key behavioral note. The bulleted use cases add a little length but are relevant and easy to scan.

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 presence of a full input schema, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage context. It doesn't discuss permission requirements or limits, but those are not necessary for a tool of this complexity.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't need to add much; it adds only general batch behavior, not parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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: upload multiple attachments to Confluence content in one operation. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling tool upload_attachment, making its scope clear.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use it: bulk uploading, adding multiple related files, and batch updating attachments. It also names the alternative upload_attachment, though it doesn't explicitly state 'use upload_attachment for a single file'.

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