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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the exact non-executing confirmation contract, the status value returned, and the token pair needed to complete the write. 'Additive and low-risk' is consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false rather than contradicting them. It does not say what the tool returns about the created page, but the confirmation flow is the non-obvious part and it is disclosed well.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then parameters, then the confirmation contract. Every sentence adds information and the CONFIRMATION label makes the critical constraint skimmable.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the action, all parameter meanings, and the unusual two-step write flow. Minor gaps remain: what the created page looks like on success and any title/parent validation rules, but nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it identifies title as required, body as optional markdown (a real format hint the schema lacks), and parent_id as nesting under another of the caller's pages. The integer|string union type on parent_id and the title length bound are left unexplained, but all three parameters gain meaning.

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 plus a scope constraint: it creates a page in the CALLER'S PERSONAL wiki, which separates it from shared/other-workspace creation tools. It does not name a sibling to contrast with (e.g., create_note or blog_create_draft), so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the tool is always proposed, never executed directly, and the caller must follow up with confirm_action using the returned action_id and plan_token. What is missing is a statement of when to choose a wiki page over the other create_* siblings, but the invocation path itself is unambiguous.

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