update-file-from-url

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

Disclosed traits beyond annotations: preserves prior revisions, appears in upload log, replaces only file content (bytes), fails if target title doesn't exist. Annotations show destructiveHint=true but no contradiction.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive; main action appears first, followed by usage constraints and alternatives. Every sentence adds necessary context without 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 explains return values (file title and URL). It covers prerequisites, failure conditions, behavior (replaces content only), and logging. Adequate for a file revision upload 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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by clarifying the 'title' parameter accepts with or without 'File:' prefix and that 'comment' is for reason.

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 identifies the tool's action: fetching a file from a remote URL and uploading as a new revision. It distinguishes from siblings like update-file (local upload) and upload-file-from-url (initial upload).

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 this tool vs. alternatives: use update-page for wikitext editing, use update-file if upload-by-URL is disabled, and use upload-file-from-url for initial uploads. Also mentions the prerequisite of upload-by-URL being enabled.

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