Upload an EPIC ZipSync file

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true), the description explicitly warns that the upload 'may notify recipients or change tenant data,' explains the confirm:true gate, and notes that the server may impose a smaller configured limit. This gives the agent a realistic picture of side effects and variability.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, endpoint, format/limit, file source, body field, reference link, and prerequisite/side-effect warning. The critical constraints are front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 write operation with a nested upload object and no output schema, the description covers endpoint, method, payload format, size cap, file source, required body field, confirmation/auth requirements, and potential tenant impact. The official documentation link fills any remaining detail gaps.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that file bytes come from the MCP file input and that the multipart body field is named 'file,' which directly helps with the upload object. It also reinforces the confirm:true requirement, though it leaves the generic query/fields parameters mostly undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Upload an EPIC ZipSync file,' then names the exact endpoint POST /api/xm/1/uploads/epic-v1 and format 'Multipart ZipSync v1.3.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling upload tools like xmatters_upload_an_attachment or xmatters_upload_a_user_upload_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 gives clear operational context: size limits, MCP file input, body field expectations, and the requirement for operator write opt-in plus confirm:true. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative upload tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full usage-routing explanation.

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