Create wiki page

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: local path validation rules (no dots, spaces, backslashes, double slashes) and the specific error behavior when a page already exists. While it doesn't mention auth or rate limits, the disclosed details are meaningful and go beyond what the name implies.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that lead with the core purpose, then add high-value details about path validation and the existing-page error. Every sentence earns its place, with zero waste.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the main edge case (existing page) and the path restrictions. While it doesn't describe the return value or all possible side effects, the schema covers parameter semantics, and the description handles the key contextual nuance. This is solid for the complexity level.

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% with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only reinforcing the path validation rule. It doesn't elaborate on tag usage or other parameters, but the schema already covers them sufficiently.

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 states the exact action ('Create a new markdown page') and resource ('in the ok-wiki at the given path'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting that existing pages should be edited via wiki_update_page, so it's clear what this tool uniquely does.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (for new pages) and when not to (if the page exists, use wiki_update_page). It even names the alternative tool, providing strong usage guidance.

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