attach_file_to_wiki_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: the tool reads current content and rewrites it together with the attachment, avoiding data loss. It also notes that the file path is resolved on the server machine, which is important for the agent to understand parameter semantics. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose, followed by a concise but crucial note about page text preservation, and then a clean Arg list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the inclusion of the 'Args:' block is slightly redundant with the schema, but it adds parameter-level explanations that the schema lacks.

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 tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, important behavior), the description provides sufficient context for correct selection and invocation. The output schema is present, so return values need not be detailed. The description explains the critical 'read-rewrite' behavior and parameter semantics, making it complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each argument: project_identifier, title, file_path as a server-side full path, comment as an edit history note, and file_name with an explicit default behavior ('empty = use the file's own name'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 and resource: 'Attach a file to an existing wiki page.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like attach_file_to_issue, which targets issues rather than wiki pages. The purpose is immediately understandable 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 explains a key usage consideration: the tool preserves existing page text by reading and rewriting it alongside the attachment, because Redmine's endpoint replaces the whole page. This indicates when and why the tool behaves as it does, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. It gives enough context for an agent to know this is the correct tool for attaching files to wiki pages.

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