update-file-from-url

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and not read-only. The description adds that prior revisions are preserved, the upload appears in the upload log, and it only replaces bytes. It also describes the fallback mechanism and failure condition when the file does not exist.

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 with four sentences, front-loading the core action. Every sentence adds value, and there is 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 no output schema, the description mentions the return (file title and URL). It covers behavior, failure conditions, and alternatives. Complete for a tool with moderate 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'title' parameter by stating it fails if no file exists, and implies the 'url' parameter is the source. However, it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool fetches a file from a URL and uploads it as a new revision of an existing file, preserving history. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is for updating an existing file (not initial upload) and only replaces file content, not the description page.

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 explicitly tells when to use (updating an existing file from URL) and when not to (initial upload use upload-file-from-url, editing description page use update-page). It also explains the fallback behavior for wiki-side fetching.

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