Update wiki page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the return wrapper containing a WikiPage model and the MissingParameterError/ParameterError failure modes, but says nothing about what happens to fields not supplied or whether content is overwritten.

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 leading purpose sentence is front-loaded and clean, but the rest is a raw docstring dump whose 'Args: **kwargs' block conveys almost nothing. The Returns/Raises sections earn their place; the kwargs section is wasted space.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition should explain which fields the update can change and any version-conflict behavior. It covers error cases and return shape but leaves the parameter surface essentially unexplained.

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 must carry the burden and largely fails: it mentions only project_id and slug as 'e.g.' kwargs and notes they are effectively required. Meaningful params like content, title, branch, version, format_type and render_html are never explained, leaving key mutation semantics undocumented.

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 sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing wiki page for a project'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not name or distinguish itself from the obvious siblings (gitlab_create_wiki_page, gitlab_delete_wiki_page, gitlab_upload_wiki_page_attachment), so it stops short of a 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 word 'existing' weakly implies this is not for creating pages, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the mutation counterpart to create/delete/get.

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