Upload Page Attachment

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool attaches the file to a page, but does not disclose nuances like whether append_markup modifies page content or how duplicate filenames are handled. No contradictions with 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. Every word serves a function, with no redundancy or filler.

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 full schema coverage, output schema presence, and clear annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. A slightly richer note about side effects (e.g., append_markup triggering page edits) or when to prefer this over other upload mechanisms would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including descriptions for slug, page_id, file_path, append_markup, and append_location. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('Upload a local file'), the target system ('Yandex Wiki'), and the purpose ('attach it to a page'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like page_get_attachments (which lists attachments) and page_append_content (which appends content).

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 implies the appropriate use case: when a user needs to upload a local file and attach it to a Wiki page. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide tool selection among siblings.

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