confluence_attachment_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it bumps the version rather than creating a duplicate, file_path is streamed from disk (never fully buffered), and it returns YAML describing the updated attachment. It references optional parameters 'as with upload' to inherit behavior. It does not cover permissions or error cases, but the available information is meaningful and non-obvious.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It covers the key differentiator (update vs create), input requirements, file handling, optional params, return format, and a reference to the CLI mirror. No wasteful words.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the main behavior, how to identify the attachment, the file path semantics, return type, and optional params. It omits error handling, authentication prerequisites, and whether previous versions are preserved, but those are secondary for successful invocation. The sibling tool references fill additional context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: it explains that page_id and attachment_id come from confluence_attachment_list, that file_path is a server-side path, and that optional params behave 'as with upload'. However, it does not add deep semantic detail for each parameter beyond what the schema already 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 the tool updates an existing Confluence attachment by uploading a new binary version, with the specific behavior of 'bumping its version instead of creating a second attachment.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling confluence_attachment_upload by explicitly focusing on EXISTING attachments and referencing the source of IDs.

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 usage context: use this tool when you need to update an existing attachment identified by page_id and attachment_id from confluence_attachment_list, contrasting it with 'creating a second attachment' (implying the alternative of upload). It does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' but the contrast with upload is sufficiently clear. The 'as with upload' reference also guides on optional parameters.

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