redmine_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so well: it reveals the return envelope (YAML with status code, body, error message), the location of the attachment token, and the critical security boundary (file must be within REDMINE_ALLOWED_DIRECTORIES). It stops short of covering auth requirements, persistence side-effects, or rate limits, but the non-obvious details it does disclose are genuinely useful.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by a tight Args block and a Returns block. No wasted phrasing; the Returns explanation of the YAML envelope carries real behavioral value rather than padding. Structure is clean and scannable, with only the verbosity of the YAML explanation being slightly expandable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already covered, yet the description still adds the envelope context. For a moderate-complexity mutation tool, it covers purpose, both parameters, the security constraint, and return format. It's largely complete; only auth/permission prerequisites and side-effect persistence notes are absent, which are minor against the output schema coverage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: file_path gains the essential allowed-directories constraint, and description is clarified as optional. Both parameters receive meaning beyond the bare schema titles ('File Path', 'Description'). Only minor gaps remain, such as description length limits or path format examples.

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 Redmine') plus a concrete outcome ('get a token for attachment'). This immediately distinguishes it from sibling redmine_download (inverse operation) and redmine_paths_* (path lookups). The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.

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 intent is implied by the purpose — uploading a file to obtain an attachment token for later use — and the security constraint hints at context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or reference to siblings like redmine_request for non-file operations. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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