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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that every save is kept as a revision, that edits are open to anyone, and that base_revision enables optimistic concurrency. It doesn't mention whether replacement is destructive to prior revisions, but the revision disclosure largely covers that.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: the operation, the access/revision model, and the concurrency control. No filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: who can edit, revision retention, and concurrency failure. It doesn't describe the return value or error cases, but the core calling context is adequately covered.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate. It explains base_revision's role and the author default is in the schema, but it doesn't explain slug, title, content, or summary semantics beyond their names. The description adds some value for base_revision but leaves the other parameters to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create or replace a wiki page') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings like get_page and get_page_history. It also clarifies the create-vs-replace duality, which is the core semantic of this tool.

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 states that anyone can edit and that base_revision can be used to fail instead of overwriting a concurrent edit, which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool and how to handle concurrency. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like create_topic or reply_to_topic, but the wiki-page scope is clear enough to route an agent.

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