Upload file to Wiki page

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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds useful procedural detail by enumerating the internal pipeline (session creation sized to data, single-part PUT, finish, attach) and stating the return value. It does not say whether repeated calls create duplicate attachments or what the size ceiling for 'small' is.

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?

Front-loads the one-call small-file scope in the first sentence, then the pipeline mechanics, then the escape hatch to the chunked path. Nothing is padded and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return ('the newly-attached files'), and it covers the split between small and chunked uploads. The remaining gap is the unspecified limit defining 'small', which an agent would need to judge whether this tool is appropriate.

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 100%, so all three parameters (data as base64 bytes, page_id, file_name) are already documented; the description only adds that the session is sized to `data`, which is marginal extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload one small file and attach it to a wiki page') and explicitly scopes it as the single-call, small-file path, which cleanly separates it from the chunked upload siblings it names.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('small file', 'single call') and an explicit when-not-to-use with the exact alternative tool chain for large files (uploadsessions_create / uploadsessions_parts_upload / uploadsessions_finish + attachments_attach). The routing decision is fully specified.

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