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

Beyond the basic annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: content format enforcement, rejection of markdown/HTML, return fields (uid, url, document_version, content), and the workspace entitlement. This is meaningful behavioral context, especially since the annotations are sparse and non-destructive hints are absent.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then add the most critical usage constraint, return values, and entitlement requirement. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 create tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers prerequisites, content format, rejection behavior, return payload, and licensing. Combined with a fully documented input schema, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining the required AHM wrapper, rejection of non-AHM formats, and pointing to get_ahm_spec for content requirements, which clarifies the content parameter beyond its schema 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 names the specific action (create), resource (wiki page), and the key constraint (AHM content, optionally in a folder). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like update_wiki_page and show_wiki_page, making the tool's purpose 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 clear context: content must be AHM, not markdown/HTML, and the agent is told to read get_ahm_spec first. It also notes the Pro/trial workspace requirement. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, but the creation-focused purpose and explicit prerequisites provide strong guidance.

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