confluence_attachment_upload

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly notes that file_path is on the MCP server's filesystem and streamed from disk (never fully buffered), which is critical technical context. It also explains the effect of comment, filename, and minor_edit parameters and states the return format (YAML). This is rich, transparent behavior disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently covers the main action, file handling behavior, optional parameters, and return format with no fluff or redundancy.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains all optional parameters, the return format, and the streaming behavior. The only minor gap is no mention of error conditions (e.g., missing file), but this is not essential for a task-completion-focused agent, and the schema covers required parameters. The description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that file_path is server-side and streamed, explains filename overrides the stored name, comment becomes a version note, and minor_edit defaults to false. This adds value beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 a local file as an attachment to a Confluence page.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like confluence_attachment_download, confluence_attachment_delete, and confluence_attachment_list. The scope is precise and immediately understandable.

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 clearly implies use for uploading files as page attachments, and the verb 'Upload' differentiates it from alternative operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives like confluence_attachment_update, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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