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

The annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, but the description goes further and discloses that the call is effectively a no-op that returns an error pointing at create_page. That is the key behavioral fact an agent needs. It stops short of describing the exact error payload or whether the call is logged/audited, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four tight sentences with no filler, and the retirement/redirect fact is placed early where it will actually change behavior. Minor redundancy from restating schema-documented length limits.

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 retired no-op tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what an agent needs: nothing is created, an error naming create_page is returned, parent exclusivity applies, and write access is required. No meaningful gap remains.

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 100% and every constraint the description mentions (title 1-200 chars, icon max 8 chars, projectId/proposalId mutual exclusivity) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a wiki page in a project or proposal') and immediately clarifies its actual current behavior: it is retired and creates nothing. The sibling it maps to (create_page / Pages) is named, so an agent can distinguish it from create_page, update_wiki_page, and get_wiki_page.

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?

Explicitly redirects the agent: Wiki is retired in favour of Pages, this tool errors and names create_page as the replacement. It also gives invocation conditions — provide exactly one of projectId or proposalId, and the caller needs write access on the parent project.

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