upload-file-from-url

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the fallback mechanism, logging appearance, and failure condition on existing titles, providing rich behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, each serving a specific purpose: main action, logging, behavior detail, and alternative guidance. Information is front-loaded and no words are wasted.

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 value (file title and URL). It covers failure mode, fallback behavior, and provides an alternative tool. It could mention authentication or rate limits but is largely complete for an AI to use.

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% with all parameters described in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics or usage details for individual parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 fetches a file from a remote URL and uploads it to the wiki's File namespace, returning the title and URL. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'update-file-from-url' by noting the failure condition for existing files and pointing to the alternative for replacement.

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 this tool (new uploads) and when not to (if file already exists, use update-file-from-url). It also clarifies it works regardless of wiki upload-by-URL settings, providing clear context for decision-making.

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