upload-file

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the upload appears in the wiki's upload log, that filepath restrictions are enforced operator-side, and that existing files cause failure. Annotations already indicate non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the description enriches understanding without 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: it starts with the main action and return value, then details constraints and alternatives. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 complexity of file uploads and the presence of sibling tools, the description covers the key points: local file path constraints, title handling, failure conditions, and links to alternatives. It also mentions the return value (title and URL) despite no output schema, making it 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema: it specifies that filepath must be absolute and within configured directories, and that title can include or omit the 'File:' prefix. This extra context helps correct usage beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 the tool's purpose: uploading a file from local disk into the wiki's File namespace and returning the title and URL. It distinguishes from sibling tools like upload-file-from-url and update-file, making the purpose specific and 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 provides explicit usage guidelines: filepath must be an absolute path inside a configured upload directory, the operation fails if the target file already exists, and it names alternatives for remote uploads (upload-file-from-url) and file updates (update-file). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus others.

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