confluence_attachment_upload

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: file is streamed from disk (never fully buffered), optional filename and comment behavior, minor_edit flag, and return format (YAML). This adds value beyond the schema but could mention required write permissions.

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 concise: three sentences that front-load the core purpose, followed by parameter clarifications and a reference to a CLI mirror. Every sentence adds value; no wasted 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?

With 5 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: action, file path streaming, parameter overrides, return type, and a CLI mirror reference. Minor gaps: no error handling or permission requirements, but overall adequate.

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 mostly echoes schema details (e.g., 'file_path is a path on the MCP server's filesystem'), adding minimal extra meaning. It does clarify that filename overrides the stored name and comment is a version note, but these are already in the schema.

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's action: 'Upload a local file as an attachment to a Confluence page.' It uses a specific verb ('Upload') and resource ('Confluence page'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as confluence_attachment_delete and confluence_attachment_list.

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 implies usage (upload an attachment) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, such as when to use confluence_download or confluence_write. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use this tool.

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