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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is rich: it discloses that pages hang off the space home page unless parented, that mention syntax differs from issues, that wrong mentions are stored silently, and that the response includes 'notified' and 'unresolvedMentions'. This is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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?

The description is dense but every clause earns its place—parent behavior, mention syntax, link syntax, return payload, and silent-failure behavior are all useful. It is front-loaded with the core action and return values, though it could be easier to scan if split into sentences or bullets.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape itself; it does, naming the new page id, URL, 'notified', and 'unresolvedMentions' with reasons. Combined with 100% parameter coverage, nothing critical is missing for safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: the mention form that actually notifies, page-link syntax, title uniqueness, and the parentId/parentTitle alternatives. It does not simply repeat property names.

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 a wiki page from Markdown in a space you can write to.' It immediately distinguishes the operation from update/delete/comment siblings and states the object being created. It also clarifies the default placement and expected return values.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('space you can write to') and explains when to use parentId versus parentTitle, including the same-space constraint. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but none of the siblings provides create-wiki-page functionality, so the contextual guidance is sufficient.

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