redmine_wiki_page_create_or_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the HTTP method and the surprising upsert behavior (update is used for new pages). However, it omits any mention of required permissions, side effects on existing content, or the shape of a successful response.

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 carry the full semantic load: the operation, the resource, the endpoint, and the critical create-via-update nuance. There is no filler or redundant restating of schema fields.

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?

The definition is adequate for a straightforward upsert: the schema provides required parameters and the description clarifies the one non-obvious behavior. It is less complete because there is no output schema and no description of the response or error conditions, so the agent is left guessing about what a successful call returns.

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?

The schema already describes project_id and the wiki_page object (with text, parent_title, comments), covering 67% of parameters. The description adds only the URL path pattern, which helps map title and project_id to the endpoint, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the individual parameters.

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 or update wiki page') and the resource, and reinforces it with the PUT endpoint. This makes it unambiguous against sibling wiki tools such as redmine_wiki_page_get, redmine_wiki_pages_list, and redmine_wiki_page_delete, none of which perform an upsert.

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 phrase 'Redmine uses update for new pages' explicitly tells the agent that this single PUT endpoint is the right call for both creating and updating a wiki page, removing the common assumption that creation needs a separate POST tool. It gives clear context, though it does not list exclusion cases or alternative read/delete tools.

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