upload_project_wiki_attachment

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Upload an attachment', omitting details like permission requirements, overwrite behavior, file type restrictions, or what happens to existing attachments.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is not verbose, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or clear separation of concepts). However, it earns points for brevity.

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 complexity of file uploads (no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain file handling, authentication, or any operational constraints.

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 0% and the description adds no information about parameters. The agent cannot infer the format of project_id, file_path, content, or branch from the description.

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), resource (attachment), and target (GitLab project wiki). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'upload_group_wiki_attachment' and wiki page modification tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upload_group_wiki_attachment for group wikis, or editing wiki pages to attach files). The agent receives no context for selection.

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