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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds real value beyond that: it states the return (created page DTO), clarifies that webUrl is not a public link and requires normal workspace access, and names the required API-key scope `wiki:pages:write`. It doesn't disclose failure modes (e.g., slug collisions) or whether retries create duplicates, which would push this higher for a non-idempotent create.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the most consequential decision (which body format to pass). It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the only slack is the repeated restatement of the markdown/content exclusivity that also appears in the parameter descriptions.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value and the meaning of webUrl, and it names the auth scope required for the call. The main remaining gap is error semantics for a non-idempotent create, but for this tool's complexity it is largely complete.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented. The description adds semantic meaning the schema only partially conveys: the markdown/content mutual exclusivity and the concrete feature set (banners, collapsibles, mermaid, mentions) that justifies choosing the heavier JSON form, plus the purpose of the parent slug for nesting. The icon, account, and workspace parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Create a wiki page under a space." An agent can distinguish this immediately from siblings like wiki_update_page, wiki_move_page, or wiki_create_space without opening a schema.

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?

It clearly routes between the two body modes (markdown vs content) and states when to prefer each, plus points at get_endpoint_examples for the TipTap shape. It doesn't explain when to use this tool rather than wiki_update_page or wiki_create_space, so usage guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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