confluence_upload_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: supports two data sources, updates same-name files by default (overwrite), and returns attachment fields and image storage markup. It could mention potential side effects like file size limits, but overall covers main behavior.

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 very concise: three sentences covering purpose, data source options, overwrite behavior, and return value. Every sentence adds information, and the main action is front-loaded.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: how to provide file data, overwrite behavior, and return format. It relies on the schema for individual parameter details, which is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%. Minor omission: no mention of error cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by summarizing the two input methods and the return behavior (image storage markup), which is not in the schema due to lack of output schema. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 it uploads an attachment to a Confluence page, and specifies two methods (filePath or base64Data) and default overwrite behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on pages, sections, and anchors, not attachment upload.

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 provides clear context for usage by explaining the two data source options and default overwrite behavior. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that confusion is unlikely.

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