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

The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: a same-name page is returned instead of duplicated, and it names the return values (slug plus an already-existed flag). That said, this dedup/upsert behavior sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=false, and the description says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or what happens when the name collides across different campaigns.

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 with zero filler: the action and scope come first, the dedup rule second, the return shape last. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 six-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and the key edge case (name collision). It leaves out permission requirements and the semantics of the optional body/coverUrl/avatarUrl fields on repeat calls, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so every parameter including the type enum and the campaign slug-or-id convention is already documented in the schema. The description's entity list (person, place, thing, faction, thread) loosely maps to the type enum but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Start a page") and enumerates the kinds of entities it covers (person, place, thing, faction, thread), which is more than the title alone. It does not differentiate itself from the obvious sibling update_wiki_page or explain why one would not use get_wiki_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: "Start a page" signals creation, and the dedup sentence implies it is safe to call without first checking existence. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_wiki_page, nor any prerequisite (e.g. campaign membership or permissions) needed to create a page.

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