jira_jira_upload_attachment

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses side effects (staged files are removed after success), automatic expiry after 30 minutes, technical approach (direct REST upload, no base64), and error conditions (ValueError in read-only mode or without Jira client).

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 longer than the two-sentence ideal but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, flow position, technical details, side effects, expiry, and errors. It is well-structured with Args/Returns/Raises sections, making it scannable despite the length.

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 multi-step upload flow, the description thoroughly covers prerequisites (staging), the operational process, postconditions (file removal and expiry), and failure modes. An output schema is present, so the Returns line is a bonus rather than a necessity. There are no missing pieces 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?

Both parameters have complete schema descriptions (100% coverage), and the description adds flow-specific context: upload_uris are explicitly tied to the /upload endpoint response with an example, and issue_key is given a concrete format. It also documents a 'ctx' argument not present in the schema, which adds a bit of confusion but still contributes useful context.

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 verb 'Upload' and the resource 'one or more staged files to a Jira issue as attachments'. It explicitly identifies this as step 3 of a client-side file upload flow, distinguishing it from construct_upload_endpoint and other attachment-related tools.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance by stating this is step 3 after construct_upload_endpoint and POSTing files to /upload. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or list alternative tools, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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