create_or_update_wiki_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions idempotency via PUT and upsert logic, which are key behaviors. However, it omits important details like optimistic locking (version parameter), content format constraints, and what happens on failure, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, achieving high conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema and 6 parameters, the description does not fully cover behavior like error responses, version conflict handling, or what the return value is. While the schema explains parameters well, the description alone leaves some contextual gaps for an AI agent.

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 value by explaining idempotency by title and upsert logic, which provides context beyond the raw parameter descriptions. It does not repeat schema details, making it additive.

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 clearly states the tool creates or updates a wiki page. It specifies the HTTP method (PUT) and idempotency by title, distinguishing it from read-only wiki tools like get_wiki_page and list_wiki_pages among siblings.

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 implies the tool is for creating or updating wiki pages but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Since there are no separate create or update tools for wiki pages, the guidance is adequate but could be more explicit.

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