write_wiki

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that writes are in-place rewrites (implying prior content is replaced) and that folder=CORE injects a page into every session, which is non-obvious behavior. It omits permissions, reversibility, and the consequence for existing page content.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core create/rewrite semantics before the folder special case. Dense and free of filler, though the capitalized 'IN PLACE' and parenthetical add mild visual noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers overwrite semantics and the CORE folder behavior but leaves key gaps: what happens to overwritten content, and how entity/content are expected to be formed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains the special value 'CORE' for folder, adding real meaning, but leaves entity and content entirely undefined — no format, naming convention, or size expectations.

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 pair (create/rewrite) and resource (wiki page), and the parenthetical 'synthesized current truth, never an appended log' sharply defines the write mode, distinguishing it from log-style siblings like log_record and write_memory. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of 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?

The 'never an appended log' clause implies when this tool is appropriate versus append-style tools, and the folder=CORE note signals a special use case. However, no alternative tool is named and no conditions or prerequisites are given for choosing write_wiki over write_memory or set_constraint.

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