upload_attachment

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) yet non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful return-value context by stating that attachment metadata, including the /api/files/:id/:name URL, is returned, though it does not mention permissions or size limits.

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?

A single sentence that fronts the action, names the target, and includes the key return detail. Every word contributes value and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter upload tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, target, and return value. An agent can call this correctly with the information provided.

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 both page_id and file_path documented. The description's 'local file' and 'to a page' wording adds no meaningful information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb plus resource: 'Upload a local file to a page.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from attachment-related siblings like get_attachment_info and search_attachments, which query rather than create.

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 gives a clear context for use: uploading a local file to a page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the action is straightforward and clearly different from the sibling read/query tools.

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