Upload a User Upload file

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the operation may notify recipients or change tenant data and requires operator write opt-in. This adds meaningful context to the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the verb, endpoint, and format. The main weakness is the dense, slightly run-on final sentence that combines reference URL and safety warnings, but the overall structure is still efficient.

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 destructive upload operation with no output schema, the description covers safety and side-effect concerns well. It does not explain all input parameters (query, fields) or describe what the API returns on success, leaving an agent to rely on the reference link for closure.

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 50%, and the description adds useful meaning by stating that file bytes come from the MCP file input and that body fields are 'file' and 'name'. However, it leaves the 'query' and 'fields' parameters unexplained, and the phrase 'optional body name' is ambiguous against the schema's required upload.name.

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 identifies the operation ('Upload a User Upload file'), the exact endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/uploads/users-v1), and the format (Multipart CSV User Upload v1.5). This distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like xmatters_upload_an_attachment and xmatters_upload_an_epic_zipsync_file.

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 conditions and prerequisites: operator write opt-in, confirm:true, and warnings about side effects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback tools.

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