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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safe-mutation profile is already covered. The description adds the edit-permission requirement, which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about failure modes (missing permission, duplicate title) or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it trades away useful detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a 3-required-parameter mutation with 0% parameter coverage and no guidance on wiki selection, duplicates, or markup format, the description is only minimally adequate.

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 all three parameters (project_id, title, text) are required with no documentation. The description provides no help on what project_id refers to, whether text is Markdown/wiki markup, or any format constraints, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Create a page in a wiki'), which distinguishes it from siblings like openproject_update_wiki_page and openproject_get_wiki_page. It does not explicitly name those siblings or scope beyond the permission clause, but the action is unambiguous.

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 gives one precondition ('where the signed-in user has edit permission'), which is useful context, but it never says when to choose this over update_wiki_page or how to handle an already-existing page title. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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