upload_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the requirement for an absolute local path and the optional side-effect of embedding the attachment in the body. However, it omits other behavioral details such as permissions, overwrite behavior, limits, or response format.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a key constraint and optional behavior. No filler or redundant text.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and key constraint, and the schema fully defines parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, there is no information about return values, errors, or permission requirements, leaving the full context incomplete for an unattended agent.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it only repeats the absolute path requirement and embed option, which are already in the property descriptions.

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 file as an attachment to a Confluence page.' It identifies the resource (Confluence page attachment) and distinguishes from siblings like get_attachments and download_attachment. The optional embed behavior is also mentioned.

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 when to use by stating an upload action, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state prerequisites. An agent can infer it is for adding attachments rather than retrieving them, but no exclusion guidance is given.

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