upload-wiki-page-file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the file must exist on disk, the attachment type is forced to 'general', and the return payload is described. It does not mention size limits or permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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 with the action, then organized into required parameters, example, returns, and note — easy to scan. The example is somewhat redundant with the parameter list, costing a bit of brevity.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by naming what is returned (file ID and attach file ID). Combined with the path precondition and the automatic type behavior, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only permission/limit details are absent.

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 are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them. The concrete example with an absolute path adds minor clarity about the expected path format, but nothing beyond that.

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 an existing Dooray wiki page'), which is precise enough to act on. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as upload-wiki-file, upload-attachment, or upload-drive-file, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

'Existing wiki page' implies the page must already exist, and the note reinforces the file-path precondition. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to choose this over upload-wiki-file or upload-attachment, so the agent must infer the selection rule.

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