upload-wiki-file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is known; the description adds value by disclosing the returned attachFileId and how it feeds create-wiki-page. It does not cover permissions, file size limits, or overwrite behavior for an existing filename, which is the remaining gap for a write 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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by skimmable sections (Required Parameters, Example, Workflow, Returns). Some redundancy between the prose 'pre-upload' sentence, the Workflow section, and the Returns line, but each block is short and the structure aids scanning.

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 2-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, params, return value (file ID and attach file ID), and the end-to-end workflow with the consuming tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description raises it slightly with a concrete JSON example that demonstrates the expected path format ("absolute path e.g. /Users/name/document.pdf") and a string-typed wikiId. It doesn't explain whether wikiId must be one the caller has write access to, but the format guidance is real added value.

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 a file to a Dooray wiki") and immediately scopes it with "(not page-specific)", which distinguishes it from the sibling upload-wiki-page-file. An agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the use case (pre-uploading before page creation) and the downstream alternative, create-wiki-page with attachFileIds. The numbered workflow makes the when-to-use and ordering unambiguous, and the 'not page-specific' note excludes the wrong sibling.

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