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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the slug is validated before writing, is immutable afterward, and collisions produce a CONFLICT rather than an overwrite. This is valuable because the annotations only say the tool is not read-only and not idempotent; the description clarifies the exact failure semantics.

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 tightly written: one clear purpose sentence followed by two sentences explaining the most important behavioral constraint. There is no filler, and the critical slug behavior is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 creation tool, the description covers the key non-obvious failure mode (slug conflicts) and the immutability constraint. The input schema richly documents all parameters and the output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. A brief pointer to colony_edit_wiki_page for existing pages would make it fully complete, but it is not a critical gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the slug parameter semantics by stating that slugs are globally unique across the entire wiki and that a collision is a conflict, which the schema does not explicitly convey. This adds genuine meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a wiki page.' This unambiguously identifies the operation and is distinct from sibling tools like colony_edit_wiki_page, colony_get_wiki_page, and colony_search_wiki by virtue of the create verb and the resource.

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 clearly implies 'use this when creating a new wiki page,' and notes that a slug collision is a conflict rather than an overwrite. However, it does not explicitly route the agent away from colony_edit_wiki_page or state when the edit tool should be used instead. The usage context is present but implicit.

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