yuque_upload_attachment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses size limits (image≤50MB, attachment/video≤2GB) and auth prerequisites (cookie+ctoken), which are useful behavioral details. However, it doesn't mention what happens on failure, rate limits, or return values.

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?

Very concise: a single sentence with key facts (limits, auth, endpoint, reference). Front-loaded with the core action. The reference pointer is useful but could be more integrated.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential constraints and auth, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or how the uploaded file is used downstream. Adequate but with room for more behavioral 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters fully. The description adds only a size constraint for the 'type' parameter, which is marginally useful but not necessary since the schema lists enums. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Upload a file to Yuque CDN'. It also names the endpoint 'POST /upload/attach' and points to a reference doc. The purpose distinguishes it from siblings like yuque_import_file or yuque_embed_url.

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?

Describes constraints (size limits, auth requirements) which imply when it can be used, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like yuque_import_file or yuque_embed_url. The usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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