upload-file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It states the base64 input requirement but omits authentication or permission needs, overwrite behavior for duplicate filenames, size limits, and what side effects occur on the wiki.

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 definition is short and front-loads the main purpose, but the second sentence repeats the base64 requirement already stated in the first sentence and in the schema. One sentence would have sufficed.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover permissions, overwrite behavior, attribution expectations, or the default-wiki behavior, leaving important operational context to the schema alone.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters, including the base64 data field. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely repeats the base64 encoding requirement.

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 names a specific verb and resource: upload a file to the wiki. It also specifies the input mechanism, base64-encoded data, which implicitly separates it from upload-file-from-url, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling.

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 use when the file content is available as base64, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as upload-file-from-url. An agent must infer the selection criteria from the input format alone.

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