update-file-from-url

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds that uploads appear in the wiki's upload log, preserve prior revisions, and only replace file content (not the description page). It also notes a failure condition. However, it lacks details on response structure beyond title and URL, and does not cover authentication or rate limits.

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 at two sentences, covering the main action and key distinctions. It front-loads the primary purpose. However, the first sentence is somewhat dense; splitting it could improve readability slightly.

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 and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage constraints, alternatives, failure cases, and return information (title and URL). This is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The overall description provides context for how parameters are used (e.g., url for fetching, title for existing file) but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions themselves.

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 specifies the action: fetching a file from a URL and uploading it as a new revision of an existing file. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning update-page, update-file, and upload-file-from-url, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use this tool (updating an existing file via URL) and when not to (if upload-by-URL disabled, use update-file with local download; for initial upload use upload-file-from-url; for file description page wikitext use update-page). It also mentions the prerequisite that the file must already exist.

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