confluence_attachment_upload

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

With no annotations, the description fully handles behavioral transparency. It details file streaming (never fully buffered), optional filename override, version comment, minor edit flag, and returns YAML. This provides good insight into tool behavior, though error handling or permission needs are not covered.

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-loaded with the purpose, then key parameter details, and a note about mirroring. Every sentence is informative with no waste. Highly concise.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers main behavior, parameters, streaming, and return value. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., page_id from find/confluence_read) but is otherwise complete for an upload tool.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying that file_path is on the MCP server filesystem, explaining streaming behavior, and stating defaults for minor_edit and filename. It enhances understanding beyond schema definitions.

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 verb 'upload' and the resource 'local file as an attachment to a Confluence page'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_attachment_delete, confluence_attachment_download, and confluence_attachment_list, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete or download attachments). It only mentions that it mirrors `omni-dev atlassian confluence attachment upload`, which is not a sibling in the current list. Usage is implied but not guided.

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