Create wiki page

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so that ground is covered. The description usefully adds the return shape (a wrapper plus a WikiPage model) and named error modes, which matters given there is no output schema. It omits real behavioral questions for a create tool: what happens if a page with the same slug/title already exists, whether it overwrites, and whether project_id is actually required (the schema marks it optional with a null default, while the docstring says it raises MissingParameterError).

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 single informative sentence is front-loaded, which is good, but the rest is Python docstring boilerplate ('Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request') that conveys no information and actively misleads about the schema. The Returns/Raises blocks earn their place; the Args block does not.

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?

Placeholder — see recalibrated value below.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails: "**kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id)" is generic boilerplate. It barely names project_id and says nothing about title, content, slug, branch, format_type, render_html, with_content, version, file, data, or api_parameters. An agent cannot infer which fields are needed to actually create a page.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new wiki page for a project." That clearly separates it from the update/delete/get wiki siblings in the same namespace. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the scope of what a wiki page is, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus gitlab_update_wiki_page, gitlab_upload_wiki_page_attachment, or gitlab_api_request, and no preconditions such as authentication or project resolution. The only conditional signal is a raised error, which is error handling rather than usage guidance.

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